Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#120229 - 09/17/19 08:59 PM Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1557
Loc: Ca
I don't fucking care if it is a massive trend, beyond princes, sheiks, polygamist Mormons, and kings with harems, poly-relationships, especially ones where the girl has a girlfriend, is a one way ticket to wanting to kill some bitches. It MUST need strict religious doctrine to work or something.

But more than bitching, this is a public service announcement to every dude that thinks he will live the dream of fucking two women 24/7.

Fantasy has stark contrast with reality.

In 3 person relationships (usually FFM) "M" is codename for scapegoat and bitch. You will never be sided with in fights, they will team up against you for fun, and even in calm seas you're still like a parent of a 18 year old. Snowed. You kind of get a shapshot of how it is but for the most part you will feel kept around so one of them's (or both) Father's won't disown the lesbian daughter. And intimacy will exist, it just wont include yourself.

It is also in your interest to NOT be a jealous type, as misery is proportional to that, in fact, you are better off paying escorts that will leave right after.

And Peter Steele made it look so glamorous.
_________________________
32.6
-117.1
Sea level
11:56 PM July, 1st 2019
Wrote Signature

Top
#120230 - 09/17/19 10:09 PM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: CanisMachina42]
LEVIATHAN'sabyss Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/15/19
Posts: 11
I wish I had this post about a year ago.

I second this PSA. It was a disaster. Granted I was drinking at the time and you really have to have your wits about you. Speaking of calm seas, you really are navigating a ship between two icebergs and there's rarely room for wake. And it changes things after. Not necessarily bad, just different. The discussion of children (in my case) will really test your foundations. It takes a strong, sharp foresight to keep things balanced if you're not all in a brainwashed cult. I was in one cult where the discussion of children almost cost lives, but I'll save that story for a future post...

Anyways, heed Canis advice, ye who enter there.
_________________________
"Of course we have free will, because we have no choice but to have it."
-Hitchslap

Top
#120233 - 09/18/19 11:37 AM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: CanisMachina42]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3385
Polyamorous is bullshit.
Threesome is fun for a night.
Not for long-lasting shit.

Besides, who wants to fuck the same two women 24/7?
Better go for broke if you want variety.
Don't get in a relationship and simply fuck around.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#120243 - 09/18/19 10:39 PM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: LEVIATHAN'sabyss]
samowens84 Offline
active member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 660
 Originally Posted By: LEVIATHAN'sabyss
I wish I had this post about a year ago.

I second this PSA. It was a disaster. Granted I was drinking at the time and you really have to have your wits about you. Speaking of calm seas, you really are navigating a ship between two icebergs and there's rarely room for wake. And it changes things after. Not necessarily bad, just different. The discussion of children (in my case) will really test your foundations. It takes a strong, sharp foresight to keep things balanced if you're not all in a brainwashed cult. I was in one cult where the discussion of children almost cost lives, but I'll save that story for a future post...

Anyways, heed Canis advice, ye who enter there.


If the situation is insincere, you're likely to find pain.

That can apply to monogamous as much as polyamorous relationships.

Just like how much loyal folks apear to you depends how capable and loyal you are to yourself.

Unless you love and respect yourself as a skill then your world will only reflect your own weaknesses or I adequacies, or an inability to accept your limitations.

Top
#120244 - 09/19/19 07:17 AM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: CanisMachina42]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1342
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: CanisMachina42
It MUST need strict religious doctrine to work or something.
Not even then.

Funny story. This girl's father joined a polygamist cult as an excuse to get novelty pussy. His self-image of righteousness didn't mesh with his desire to cheat on his wife, so he convinced himself it was religious conviction instead of wandering eye.

As it turns out, the religious order doled out hot, young pussy based on church donations, and this dude was poor as fuck, so when he finally did get a second wife, she was old and fat.


 Originally Posted By: CanisMachina42
In 3 person relationships (usually FFM) "M" is codename for scapegoat and bitch.
Yup.

Like most bisexual women, I am attracted to maybe one man per every 50 women I find attractive. In order to be an attractive woman, you basically have to be a woman and have nothing wrong with you. In order to be a sexy man, you really have to have something actively going on for you. Sorry, life ain't fair.

Even so, I usually end up with men, because it's easiest to fall back on what's readily available. Who'd make the effort when they needn't do so? Dick is the low-hanging fruit.

That being the case, I'd be extremely skeptical of any woman who put forth the active effort to get pussy when she already has dick readily available. What you have there is a woman who doesn't like dick, my friend. Or, at the very least, doesn't like yours. But nah, I'm calling lesbian, because if it's just yours she doesn't like, it's still infinitely easier to find a different dick.

Sure, she'll suck it just as often as she needs to get whatever else she wants out of you. (And not once more.) But make no mistake--she wants you for something other than dick.

As a general rule, regardless of sex and orientation, polyamory just sounds ridiculously exhausting. With two people, the only dynamic you have to worry about is the one between person A and person B. With every person you add to the mix, you're adding a new dynamic between that person and every person already there. The more complicated the mechanism, the more moving parts, the more ways in which it can break.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#120248 - 09/19/19 01:43 PM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: XiaoGui17]
samowens84 Offline
active member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 660

The common mistake is to assume that there isn't a package deal. Often women have used men to network to meet other women. And IF a man is worthwhile, he gets to stay, if not, they usually tend to budge them to being gay.

Point being often there already are a bunch of "moving parts" that need to be accounted for and accepted so that either world isn't broken by an unequal relationship.

Everything has some measure of negotiations involved, and some females found it hard to accept that my world has moving parts like theirs, and so my bargaining power goes up and I'm more likely to have a rich and independent world to leverage respect kindness and consideration.

Contrary to the assumption of what others think things should be, if a man allowed a woman to use love to isolate him from friends family and other romantic interests, then her leverage could likely influence even against her best intentions to treat him with contempt as her world would look rich with friends and lovers and experience, while his by contrast might look dark and isolated and dependent on her for social interaction. This is what defines a "cuckhold" and what I will avoid. Being cuckholded isn't about whether a partner is faithful to the other, it's that.

The catch 22 is that male female relationships is unavoidable for me so if that had to happen in one form or another, then I'm pragmatic and make sure I get something out of it.

But I do have unique leverage. Because while everyone else seems to be whining about having a partner being heterosexual, LGBT or whatever, I'm willing to reject all partners and be alone unless I get a white female partner that will be as good to me as I will be to her.

That or nothing.

And I can care and nurture myself better than just some person. And so often much of the offers I'd gotten were inferior to what I can do for myself. And so in those cases being alone was preferred. I've even gotten offers from partners I love more than anything, but the proposed partnership was a bad deal for both of us, and often it's been me who's had to say no. But when I've done so, she often just runs to someone else instead of being comfortable alone.

And that was a problem. And how I knew she wasn't ready for a quality relationship.

And of course I will never abandon my family or loved ones, and since either option I had been presented prior to today, whether being gay or having my preferred partner would have had that effect, this is why I said no.

If I don't put my family first than any partner I would have had would have been toxic.

Why it's all or nothing by necessity.


Edited by samowens84 (09/19/19 02:30 PM)

Top
#120744 - 11/07/19 12:33 AM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: samowens84]
Zheco Offline
lurker


Registered: 05/19/18
Posts: 1
Loc: Massachusetts
I am quite glad to have read this honestly, I have been in debates with my partner on this exact topic. She had suggested it a few times in a bit of a cheeky way but never seriously until I found her with somebody else.

She kinda wormed it into my head for a short moment in this past week that things would be better by adding a new dynamic to our clearly failing relationship. Reading these perspectives and really adding it to my own situation has given me a bit of a jolt that I've been needing. No Polyamory for me and honestly, I don't think there will be anything with her at all either.

Thank you for this insight.

Top
#120750 - 11/07/19 08:51 AM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: Zheco]
samowens84 Offline
active member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 660
The flaw in polyamorous relationships that can potentially manifest is that it purports to solve the problem of dependency on one person by spreading the responsibility of dependency around, but it hasn't really solved the problem



The nature of resentment is self centered. When I have a resentment I don't resent the person place or thing, I resented myself.

I resented myself because I had unnecessarily given my power away when I didn't have too. And that I find is the nature of resentment and when faced with resentment honestly it's a clue to the nature of resentment as an indicator of an instinct.

No matter the situation, the less dependent I am on others to define my well being, the less resentful I am.

Someone may object that we all have to engage with people and society on some level, I would agree with them in fact, but that they miss the point.

It's about balance. Every interaction is a balance of integrity. Their integrity and my own must be balanced.

The nature of integrity being the core virtue of an honest human being that values self and family first.

The first principle of negotiation is to know what's non negotiable.

Your family is non negotiable. Your offspring is non negotiable. Your dignity is non negotiable.

These principles may be subjective to circumstances, but there is always a non negotiable component of family offspring and dignity in any situation.

If the dignity had been lost, then the determination to restore it must be non negotiable. The optimism to prevail in these self contained non aggressive interests must be preserved at all costs in order to produce a favorable outcome.

When these self interests are intuitively understood, then one will intuitively understand whether the negotiating partner is negotiating in good faith or not. Good faith being defined by being faithful to their non aggressive interests of integrity that seeks only to build and restore and protect their family, offspring and dignity, or the determination to regain such while respecting my integrity in return.

If such were determined to act in bad faith, then I'm not responsible for their consequences, so long as I continue to act in good faith.

In other words, good faith would require that I only interact with bad faith in so far as to preserve my natural rights to protect myself, my family, my offspring and my dignity.

To stay in good faith is to be in good faith regardless of the bad faith of others.

This relates to polyamorous relationships. For some it may be assumed that they had solved the problem of dependency on one single relationship by having several.

But instead the danger is that they may have fallen victim for diffusing responsibility for maintaining their integrity.

Bad faith polyamorous relationships can manifest when a person in that relationship forgets to love themselves.

If your answer to a problem in one relationship is to seek out another instead of having time alone to heal and introspect, then you'd just be spreading the problem of dependency and resentment of one to another.

You'd still be powerless because the message youd be sending to others and the universe is that you feel powerless to heal yourself and the person you love. You know better consciously or subconsciously, but the attention of another is a drug of distraction to forget that you're powerful enough to heal yourself if you put in the work.

The avoidance scenario is as follows.

Problem in relationship, * unconscious belief that problem can't be solved* subconscious knowing that it can be solved *sought out enabler to feed the lie that the relationship issue can't be solved.*

This is the potential toxic dynamic of polyamorous relationships that can arise from toxic codependency.

Talking to others can still manifest honesty that provide solutions to escaping codependency.

There are two kinds of self honesty. One is the honesty with self. What you want, and what makes you tick. There's another level of honesty that is interpersonal. What honest expectation that one can expect from an interaction with another human being.

This is the danger of codependency that can manifest in monogamous relationships that have limited interactions with others.

Interactions for what can reasonably be expected is based on context. For in whatever kind of different gaps of inner worlds two people may share, within reason those two individuals share the same context, at least when dealing with each other.

If good faith principles are respected and acknowledged, then the only variables are clear communication and context. The context being shared values and concerns. Communication being able to communicate non negotiable good faith principles and finding common ground that doesn't compromise the good faith of either person.

This is done through practiced and disciplined interactions.

In a monogamous relationship this skill can potentially get lost when one is feeling the wonderful joy, love and acceptance and unconditional love of another human being.

If the principal reason for interacting with others is to feel this, then that satisfaction can give the illusion that communication, integrity and good faith would no longer be necessary.

Enmeshment of monogamous relationships is the pitfall of codependency that polyamorous relationships can solve.

I personally don't believe that every "in love" feeling implies anything sexual. It's just basic human connection that can lead to a friendship.

Polyamorous relationships where all person's considered gather together to air their disagreements while healing themselves personally is that solution.

Power being about maintaining good faith integrity, and feeling comfortable in their own power to not be threatened by the success of another.

Once hope is found, the psychological need to interfere with the hope of another is deflated and replaced with personal optimism to restore their own good faith.

That is my personal experience with human psychology and negotiation.

Top
#120751 - 11/07/19 09:00 AM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: Zheco]
samowens84 Offline
active member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 660
This helps to avoid the flaw in people pleasing because good faith never compromises itself to someone acting in bad faith.

Good faith never compromises itself for the sake of gratitude.

Gratitude is self rewarding and self affirming.

Only someone who lacks gratitude would try to demand it.

That lack is a tell that someone was either acting in bad faith, or superficial frustration.

If one says no to the intitial demand, the response will confirm the truth.

If they respond thoughtfully with gratitude and respect your good faith, then the balance of good faith balance had been restored.

Some might respond with a sales tactic called agree ignore resume.

This would be about long term appeals to bad faith.

Good faith has no responsibility to bad faith, and would be ethically justified to exploit the defensive bad faith of others if their good faith was temporarily cornered.


Edited by samowens84 (11/07/19 09:22 AM)

Top
#120753 - 11/07/19 11:23 AM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: samowens84]
samowens84 Offline
active member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 660
My humanity is my non negotiable survival instinct pivot point how all people's intentions hopes and context provide perfect clarity of myself and my self-interest and how that self interest relates to every social dynamic I find myself in.
Top
#120754 - 11/07/19 12:10 PM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: Zheco]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1342
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: Zheco
I am quite glad to have read this honestly, I have been in debates with my partner on this exact topic. She had suggested it a few times in a bit of a cheeky way but never seriously until I found her with somebody else.
Ah, yes. "Having been caught breaking the rules, I'd like them retroactively amended."

If that ain't the shit test to end all shit tests...

 Originally Posted By: Zheco
She kinda wormed it into my head for a short moment in this past week that things would be better by adding a new dynamic to our clearly failing relationship.
Naturally. Have you tried getting her pregnant? I hear that fixes everything.

 Originally Posted By: Zheco
No Polyamory for me and honestly, I don't think there will be anything with her at all either.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#120755 - 11/07/19 01:19 PM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: samowens84]
samowens84 Offline
active member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 660
To truly love a woman I find isn't about being with her, but from this place of my humanity to love and cherish the same values.

I can't love a woman and try to be with her at the expense of everything I value and she values.

Mutually cherished values makes a love eternal.

Values can't be owned, they can only be loved and lived.

In this manner mutually shared values can lead two people apart, but makes it so that love never dies.

Freedom to hold each other accountable and to live right makes love free and last forever.


Edited by samowens84 (11/07/19 01:20 PM)

Top
#120759 - 11/08/19 12:48 AM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: XiaoGui17]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1557
Loc: Ca
Sorry I missed this response. Must have been Captain Platitude wanting to share more of its bullshit.

 Quote:
Like most bisexual women, I am attracted to maybe one man per every 50 women I find attractive. In order to be an attractive woman, you basically have to be a woman and have nothing wrong with you. In order to be a sexy man, you really have to have something actively going on for you. Sorry, life ain't fair.


True for ACTUAL bisexual men as well, not just the closet cases using it as a stepping stone or cop out. But as it turns out all the women I am personally attracted to wear little to no makeup, swing their arms when they walk, and have unusually broad shoulders.

Somewhat of a sapphic trend there. I blame being dragged to ASA sporting events from 7-14 years old. That and a matriarchal parental environment with the father taking a submissive role.

And even the one guy for every 50 girls is always a natural Genna Rocero type, even the pretransistioned version.

But to the topic:

In my opinion the ONLY way these relationships work is a symbiotic fetish.

In MFF

The male has to want to be used and left out.  "Lesbian cockholding fetishes" remove all jealousy because that is the fetish and the dude gets off on her being gay.

Jealousy that would likely return with a vengeance if it was a guy, I am guessing anyway...

There are tons of those as well. With MF swinger couples the dude generally likes watching some dude destroy his chick, which like "DP" or the very wrong looking "DVDA" has always struck me as varying levels of homosexuality. Especially those wacky Bob Crane types.

If all sexual fetishes were cataloged everybody would have a fingerprint based on the degree of childhood warping.
_________________________
32.6
-117.1
Sea level
11:56 PM July, 1st 2019
Wrote Signature

Top
#120760 - 11/08/19 01:02 PM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: CanisMachina42]
samowens84 Offline
active member


Registered: 09/29/16
Posts: 660
"The male has to want to be used and left out. "Lesbian cockholding fetishes" remove all jealousy because that is the fetish and the dude gets off on her being gay."

This is projecting. A woman who may be involved with a man and a woman doesn't have to fit the mold you just described.

On the outside the only conclusion when there's two women and a man is that there's two women involved with a man.

Your insistence on that being the dynamic implies jealousy and possessiveness issues with you.

In some cases it's a heterosexual relationship with one woman or the other left out.



Or an interdependent dynamic between all three independent but affectionate people.

If one woman were biscurious or pansexual and the other woman were a lesbian, the lesbian might fall into the trap of being the dumb girl who doesn't get it. And she herself might find herself being left out and used.


A woman may act a bit like a man in being possessive and just assuming the women she's attracted too should think and feel just like her just because she's a woman.

Everyone can be a little bit trans right?

If one wants to get into fetish, I have a female friend and we have a semi threesome thing. The "lesbian" of the group seemed to have a confirmation bias that women were superior to men and that women always side with each other to leave men out.

My pansexual female friend lets me wear her aura whenever we feel it's appropriate to emotionally and/or intellectually dominate the odd lesbian out to play on that confirmation bias.

There are many ways a fetish thing might manifest.

For example, the spiritual"pullout" method doesn't work on me because of or some spiritual initiation with my pansexual female friend, but the lesbian friend didn't know that.

So.... Yeah.


Edited by samowens84 (11/08/19 01:13 PM)

Top
#120762 - 11/08/19 02:39 PM Re: Three's Misery: A Polyamorous PSA [Re: samowens84]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1557
Loc: Ca
I was responding to XG (Vanessa), you are like a child that wanders into the middle of a movie and demands to know what's going on.

You're out of your element.

_________________________
32.6
-117.1
Sea level
11:56 PM July, 1st 2019
Wrote Signature

Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.