Opinions about open relationships?

[Willow My Love]

Strive to be the alpha? I guess I'm lacking that. Really sounds like a chore more than anything else. Wouldn't be the only drive I seem to lack; I never quite understood the "drive to procreate", either. 🙂

It's a basic human trait. It's why we dress how we do, talk how we do. We all want to be noticed.

I'm just putting a nicer label to a loveless romantic obsession if there is any "special someone" when I'm not in that state of mind.

I'm kind of frightened by what you think a "loveless romantic obsession" is.

I'd just assume that you rate loyalty so high that there's no place for love anymore.

You obviously missed the entire point of what I said there. Your assumption is wrong.

Just repeating... that story has got nothing to do with ORs, in itself. 😉

I was sharing that I've been hurt by someone deciding to be with someone other than me. That story does have merit in this conversation.

Doesn't sound healthy to me (would be hell for me, to be frank), but if that's what rocks your boat, who am I to say stop it? 😉

So, should Willow have gone looking for Kennedy after she found Tara? I don't think so. I love the person I'm with in a way no one could compare with. I don't need anyone else. I don't need to go looking, because I'm content. How does that not sound healthy?

 

[Christopher]

I can't stand the idea of open relationships and think that anybody who participates in one must have serious psychological issues. The thought of somebody I love being with another man makes me extremely uncomfortable.

 

[mayfever]

However, if you are my friend, and in my "target group" of attractivity (most of my freinds are female and not exactly dog-faced either, so that's easily 80%+ of them 😛), the question of whether or not we're gonna make love is almost guaranteed to come up, and pretty soon. More often than not, the answer will be "no", and that's absolutely fine; but I hope I'll never get desperate enough to put up with a ship in which my partner denied me the right to be asking that question to my other friends in the first place.

Ok, now please believe me that I mean absolutely no offence, but if you were my friend, I would be extremely put off by this behaviour. You say it's fine if the answer is no, but I have a ton of experience that shows that a friendship never really recovers from an unsuccessful advance. After my last ex broke up with me, almost all of my single guy friends made a pass at me in some way, and I could never be as unguarded with them as I used to before, because I was always worrying what kind of signals I was sending out. (Apparently, I flirt a lot even if I don't mean to, hence the confusion). I want my friends to be my friends, nothing more and nothing less.

Just out of curiosity though - you say you get turned down more often than not. Assuming you met an incredible person who genuinely loves you, but wants to be exclusive - would you still consider that compromise desperate even if the alternative means no love AND no sex?

Please, please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against open relationships or people in them, but your views seem to be pretty cast-iron. Wouldn't you consider it a possibility that you might change and meet that person with whom exclusivity would not feel like a chore? I always feel like if someone is that firm in their opinions, they might find it hard to accept it if circumstances change, because they might feel like they are betraying themselves. Am I making sense?

 

[InsaneMystic]

Unless you find someone who fully satisfies you.

Not ever gonna happen, and I'm glad it won't. I wouldn't be online here if it would, for once... wasting my time talking to people who are not The One. 😉

It's a basic human trait. It's why we dress how we do, talk how we do. We all want to be noticed.

Want to be noticed, yes. That's not the same as being the alpha, though. I want to be given the respect I deserve as a human being, and that includes not being overlooked; but I don't want to be the highup guy because noone else is as cool as me and people should be grateful of being granted an audience. Bow to the master. : king :

I'm kind of frightened by what you think a "loveless romantic obsession" is.

So am I, that's why I take pains never to go anywhere near there again. No woman will ever get me to consider her "the only one". Because it's wrong and leads to very bad things.

I was sharing that I've been hurt by someone deciding to be with someone other than me. That story does have merit in this conversation.

I very, very much hope for your sake that that's not what you were hurt by. You were hurt by someone breaking a rule of your relationship, which in your case, just happened to be the monogamy/exclusivity clause. If you can actually get hurt merely "by someone deciding to be with someone other than you", then yes, I do think you have serious insecurity issues, and those would scare me off even becoming close friends with you, let alone partners.

So, should Willow have gone looking for Kennedy after she found Tara? I don't think so. I love the person I'm with in a way no one could compare with. I don't need anyone else. I don't need to go looking, because I'm content. How does that not sound healthy?

She wouldn't have needed to go looking for her, but if Kennedy comes along, why on earth should Willow be blind for her just because Tara is there? Limiting the flow of your love like that is not a good thing. I know I could never be content with it, and it's not a question of if or how much I love my partner. Indeed, because I love my shipmate (who is pretty much the coolest person I've ever known, the best friend I could ever wish for, and the one I click with perfectly), I couldn't bear the thought of telling her who she'd be allowed to love or of how she'd be allowed to express that love. It's just unthinkable and presumptous. I'm there to be her best friend and support her in any way I can, not her prison warden trying to maximize the amount of my own satisfaction squeezed out of her at any time I choose to call on her.

And if her answer were "but I only wanna love you", I'd start running. Fast. *shivers*

To bring it to the point: If you "need noone else", and something ever happens to your partner, or if you ever split up, what do you do? Consider suicide because your life is a shambles? Or live a lonely, bitter, loveless life? Or seek someone else (proving that your partner is exchangable after all)?

---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:26 AM ----------

Ok, now please believe me that I mean absolutely no offence, but if you were my friend, I would be extremely put off by this behaviour. You say it's fine if the answer is no, but I have a ton of experience that shows that a friendship never really recovers from an unsuccessful advance. After my last ex broke up with me, almost all of my single guy friends made a pass at me in some way, and I could never be as unguarded with them as I used to before, because I was always worrying what kind of signals I was sending out. (Apparently, I flirt a lot even if I don't mean to, hence the confusion). I want my friends to be my friends, nothing more and nothing less.

I've hardly ever (not never, but really rarely) have had a problem with a friendship after this. It's another argument for communicating things honestly very early on, really.

Just out of curiosity though - you say you get turned down more often than not. Assuming you met an incredible person who genuinely loves you, but wants to be exclusive - would you still consider that compromise desperate even if the alternative means no love AND no sex?

Yes. I'd very clearly tell her that if exclusivity is what she's looking for, and she's not about to change that view, then I'm not the right one for her. She has the right to find someone to be happy with, and in that scenario, it's very obvious that I am not that person.

Please, please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against open relationships or people in them, but your views seem to be pretty cast-iron. Wouldn't you consider it a possibility that you might change and meet that person with whom exclusivity would not feel like a chore? I always feel like if someone is that firm in their opinions, they might find it hard to accept it if circumstances change, because they might feel like they are betraying themselves. Am I making sense?

You are. 🙂 And I pray to God I never run into a woman who could make me betray my values enough to consider exclusivity with her. Thankfully, I very much doubt it would happen, anyway. I actually see the cast-ironness as a compliment, lol.

 

[EvilBuffy]

To bring it to the point: If you "need noone else", and something ever happens to your partner, or if you ever split up, what do you do? Consider suicide because your life is a shambles? Or live a lonely, bitter, loveless life? Or seek someone else (proving that your partner is exchangable after all)?

I just want to say that I have found my 'one'. If something happened to him, I would continue to live. I wouldn't consider suicide that's for sure. I also wouldn't be lonely, that's what I have friends and family for. I wouldn't be bitter either because hey, shit happens. But I would live out my life and be happy that I managed to find someone that I cared for so deeply, even if our time together had been cut short for whatever reason.

From reading your posts though, I just think that you define love much differently than I (and some other people) do. Love is different for everybody and I realize that, so I can't say that I disagree with you completely. To each their own and all that. 🙂

 

[mayfever]

Yes. I'd very clearly tell her that if exclusivity is what she's looking for, and she's not about to change that view, then I'm not the right one for her. She has the right to find someone to be happy with, and in that scenario, it's very obvious that I am not that person.

Just one more thing, and then I'll shut up and go to bed, lol. I understand that you would act like that out of concern for her, but what I meant was would you deprive yourself of that chance of happiness? Don't you even consider the theoretical possibility that you might one day be so completely smitten with a person that you would be willing to give up the possibility to sleep with others?

As for myself, I've had flings, affairs, relationships, friends-with-benefits-things and relationships, and I know that I don't have to love somebody to have sex with them. However, when I fall in love with someone, I don't even WANT to sleep with anyone else. It's totally ok to have crushes even when you're in a long term relationship (as long as you don't act on them), but as soon as you really start craving sex with other people, then (at least for me) that relationship is as good as over.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Just one more thing, and then I'll shut up and go to bed, lol. I understand that you would act like that out of concern for her, but what I meant was would you deprive yourself of that chance of happiness? Don't you even consider the theoretical possibility that you might one day be so completely smitten with a person that you would be willing to give up the possibility to sleep with others?

Simply put, there is no chance of happiness for me in a ship forbidding me to love others. Making love is just one way of expressing love, and it's either a good way of expressing it (then it's not a good idea limiting yourself in your ability to use it), or a bad way (then your partner should be the very last person to consider ever have sex with).

I could think of giving up sex completely if necessary, so "becoming smitten" to someone enough to have her convince me that sex is bad and I should live completely chaste, both with her with and everyone else, is a (verrrrry vague 😉) possibility. But keep having sex while limiting it to one person? A world of no. It's just wrong.

---------- Post added at 04:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 AM ----------

As for myself, I've had flings, affairs, relationships, friends-with-benefits-things and relationships, and I know that I don't have to love somebody to have sex with them. However, when I fall in love with someone, I don't even WANT to sleep with anyone else. It's totally ok to have crushes even when you're in a long term relationship (as long as you don't act on them), but as soon as you really start craving sex with other people, then (at least for me) that relationship is as good as over.

Just noticed something there to answer to, too, lol. I'm pretty much completely the opposite from you there - I do have to love someone to have sex with them, but I don't see how wanting to have sex with someone else has any kind of relevance to a relationship.

 

[Angels baby101]

Dude i almost forgot to reply to this cause I seen it on my phone the other night but I couldn't be bothered to type out some long reply using my cell... because it sucks and it hurts my fingers lol.

My dad, used to be a swinger so I was raised around a parent that had that kind of open lifestyle. Both he and my old step mother used to be swingers, and they were married for about 10 years. Now they only did this kind of thing with a small group of people and it wasn't an every weekend type thing but maybe a once a month. Now when I was younger I didn't know about this of course, but I was friends with the other swinger's kids. They all seemed happy and content, all the couples loved their other half very much, I think it was just something to keep their relationship from going to crap. Now don't get me wrong I think its stupid and I wouldn't go for it but I think it depends on the people honestly. I think it could work out long term, if the people have the right mindset. Amazingly enough it wasn't the swinging that seperated My dad and his ex wife... it was the fact that she didn't like him sticking up for me about certain things, or sticking up for his mother on things. The woman abused me a few times both mentally and physically, it was mostly mental but eventually my dad started catching on he didn't want to believe it at first and she didn't like that he believed me over her so she left him. Other than that though I don't think the swinging messed with them at all... I actually think it kept them closer. Go figure *shrugs*

 

[Mozzymandias]

I personally believe that with the right people and mentality it's perfectly manageable to make an open relationship last for a prolonged period of time.

Like previously mentioned I think the biggest key to it working is honesty, if all parties are 100 percent honest with each other not much can go wrong. If a person starts to develop feelings further than the bounds originally agreed and is up front about it, a conversation can take place to discuss the route of becoming exclusive to one another or whether to end the arrangement.

I also think a big factor that can lead to being a person wanting an open relationship is the current situation you're in. For example, last year I was in college and was in an open relationship with two women who we're also seeing other people. One was studying full time in Uni and another doing a course at home and working part time. Whereas now in a full time job I find I'd much rather prefer to have one person around who I can just phone/text/IM to talk about my day and spend time with. I just think dependant on your lifestlye, with college I had freedom to do what I wanted and now I get very little time to myself and I guess I feel like since I have so little time I want that to be spent with one person who fully appreciates it.

Back on the theme of honesty, you've got to be able to communicate fully with your partners and not be afraid to make sure that if they are sleeping with others (because that's not necessarily what they are doing) that they are using protection and that their partners understand the situation and that what they have isn't exclusive.

On the note of terminology and whether or not there is a difference between sleeping with a friend and an open relationship. I think there is, I think that when you're sleeping with a friend and refer to it as so that's all you're getting out of it. Sex. Whereas an open relationship is where you can spend time with that person doing things 'exclusive couples' would do together, only you do it with multiple people.

I'd also like to mention that I think many people have a warped view of open relationships and that like with many things I think its the minority that gets highlighted and make people think that an open relationship means 'having sex with more than one person and it being ok' Yes, people do use it for that sole reason but I'd say it's a safe bet that more people use it because they want to have something more than a friendship with someone but just don't want to commit to a singular person for one reason or another, I definitely don't agree with the use of the term 'whore' because in my own experience in open relationships not one of the people I were involved with acted in any way like a 'whore' nor did I myself, it's sort of offensive to me personally having been in an open relationship and is also an example of why I do think people have the wrong view on open relationships.

I'd just like to apologize for ANY typos and that jazz, it's like 5:21am and I started writing this out 30 mins ago and am so tired, but needed to finish it before sleeping.

 

[mayfever]

As other people have said before, I don't like the use of the term "whore" here. If you enjoy your sexuality safely and responsibly (and don't get paid for it, lol), you're not a whore full stop.

Simply put, there is no chance of happiness for me in a ship forbidding me to love others. Making love is just one way of expressing love, and it's either a good way of expressing it (then it's not a good idea limiting yourself in your ability to use it), or a bad way (then your partner should be the very last person to consider ever have sex with).

Ok, while I really can't see this working for myself, I can kind of see your point. I tried to use my own logic on myself - would I enter an open relationship with someone I love because he or she insists - and I would not, no matter how fascinating I found that person, because it goes deeply against what I know about myself. I just couldn't handle it, so I guess my argumentation was a bit unfair.

Just noticed something there to answer to, too, lol. I'm pretty much completely the opposite from you there - I do have to love someone to have sex with them, but I don't see how wanting to have sex with someone else has any kind of relevance to a relationship.

Wow, you seem to love a lot of people then 😉 Btw, I didn't mean that it's not ok to want sex with someone else when you're in a relationship, because that just goes against nature. Anyone who says they never looked at anyone else while dating someone is usually lying (not saying there are no exceptions, mind you). However, my motto is "Love is when being faithful is fun" and as we say in Germany "It's ok to work up an appetite, but dinner's eaten at home."

 

[zobothehobo]

So I decided to finally pipe up and voice my opinions on the subject. Sex without commitment (and that's what I feel open relationships are: sex with someone you enjoy and possibly even love without commitment) is fine and dandy. It can be fun and interesting and it works for some people. It wouldn't work for me... I'd NEED commitment... that's just the type of person I am. We all have different ways of thinking and feeling about commitment and the people around us... the connections we have with others. We all want to be loved, to matter and make a difference in someone's life. We all have different ways we think about those things. And those things mean different things for different people and couples. I get that and I respect everyone's choices... but to me, open relationships are juvenile. They're sex without commitment. I feel like while open relationships may be exciting, fun, and interesting... eventually, they might (as in probably will) catch up to you... may it be in the form of an STD or an unwanted pregnancy with a questionable paternity (just two examples).

That being said, a lot of it comes down to honestly. If you're open and honest with your partners, I believe open relationships are fine.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Wow, you seem to love a lot of people then 😉

Well yeah, my ideal would be loving everybody. I'm far from that, to be honest - but I do love the majority of people I'm in anything beyond the utmost casual contact with; in fact, it wouldn't seem right to me to keep up close contact with those I don't manage to love... so I keep trying. 🙂 (And yep, that means there's quite a lot of people right here on BB who I love, even if I never said "I love you" to them. Several monogamists and romantics would likely misunderstand me if I did, anyway, lol.)

Unsurprisingly, I only make love to a minuscule fraction of the people I love, of course (and you'd probably be surprised at how small indeed a fraction it is... even at the most raunchy of times - which lasted roundabout a year in my case - 5% of the "current bunch" I love would have been a VERY high estimate, and times are a whole lot quieter now). Like I said, last time there was anything really going on in that sector was one time somewhere around this summer. But even if it's few and far between to have it actually happen, I will be adamant about not signing away my right to polyerotics being possible, especially not in the name of a concept of monogamous "love" I very much disagree with in the first place. 🙂

 

[Harley]

I mostly skimmed this thread so someone may have already said this, but if you're going to have an "open" relationship, what's the point of the relationship in the first place? I figure if I'm going to go to the effort of calling someone my boyfriend, it means were exclusive to each other. If I want to be ooey-gooey with multiple guys, then none of them is my boyfriend. Does that make sense? A boyfriend to me, is a step toward marriage. If I'm not going to attempt to marry him, what's the point in him being my boyfriend?

 

[methos]

Polyamory is a valid lifestyle just as being gay, straight or any other is...

Polyamory means "loving more than one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved in less than one.) Some people think the definition is a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly arrangements out there.

I think the key in defining polyamory is openness, that is, having multiple relationships with the knowledge and consent of your partner(s) rather than by deceit. (How much openness, how many details are shared, of course varies widely.) A great many people have secret affairs while they're in a supposedly monogamous relationship. I think those people might have the potential to be polyamorous, but I do not think they are practicing polyamory. Another key in defining polyamory, IMO, is that it need not involve sex (although it often does).

Some people seem to have no jealousy; it's as if they didn't get that piece installed at the factory. Others, including some long-term polyamorists, feel jealousy, which they regard as a signal that something needs investigation and care, much as they would regard depression or pain. Jealousy is neither a proof of love (and this is where polyamory differs from possessive or insecure monogamy) nor a moral failing (and this is where polyamory differs from emotionally manipulating one's partner(s) into relationships for which they are not ready).

If you're looking for more information about polyamory, it's been around a long time, a hell of a long time... it's well known the ancient Greeks and Babylonians practiced polyamory way before traditional marriage views came into being... so I don't see the point in arguing with a practice that's well over 3000 years old and was established way before religious marriage or modern day sensibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

M

 

[InsaneMystic]

I mostly skimmed this thread so someone may have already said this, but if you're going to have an "open" relationship, what's the point of the relationship in the first place? I figure if I'm going to go to the effort of calling someone my boyfriend, it means were exclusive to each other. If I want to be ooey-gooey with multiple guys, then none of them is my boyfriend. Does that make sense?

It's the same as having a lot of friends, but one of them is your best friend. I really don't see why a relationship should require any "point" beyond just liking each other's company. By calling it a ship, you basically just acknowledge that this contact, in whatever possibly spongy to define way, is "special" compared to your other friendships (sexual or otherwise); what kind of specialty that is will likely be different for every couple.

A boyfriend to me, is a step toward marriage. If I'm not going to attempt to marry him, what's the point in him being my boyfriend?

Heh. Think that's such a strict view that even a lot of the monogamists will disagree with it, lol.

For me, unsurprisingly, marriage is a dusty, obsolete relic from the middle ages. It's basically an economic contract of interdependency (in essence, man gives woman financial security in return for exclusive use of her womb) that works in a setting where the patriach plows his farm's cornfield while the constantly pregnant wifey does the household chores; once that system broke down in the Industrial Revolution, the whole concept of marriage became essentially outdated, and only then did it get half-heartedly muddled with concepts of romanticism; everybody knew before that love is unnecessary for a marriage to work, as they would usually be arranged by your parents anyway for economic and/or political, certainly not for emotional reasons. If you'd find love in your marriage, that'd basically be an unexpected bonus, and to marry someone "because you love them" would be considered reckless juvenile folly (and usually squashed in the bud by your parents).

A 21st century Western-Industrialized woman who can earn her own money, use birth control, and can reasonably expect 90+% of her children to survive their childhood pretty much has no plausible reason to ever get married, IMO.

 

[theroyalgoat]

If you're looking for more information about polyamory, it's been around a long time, a hell of a long time... it's well known the ancient Greeks and Babylonians practiced polyamory way before traditional marriage views came into being... so I don't see the point in arguing with a practice that's well over 3000 years old and was established way before religious marriage or modern day sensibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

M

The ancient greeks are hardly a good standard or argument for anyone. Pedophelia and incest was a big practice in those times to. And there are still pedo's around 3000 years later.

I keep seeing words like restricted being used in here which if that really how you see monogamy then I feel badly for you. I've never felt confined or limited. Monogamy is a choice that people make because they feel they don't need all this glorious 'freedom' a few people here have been talking about. Commitment isn't some horrible curse, it's intimate and special.

 

[InsaneMystic]

I keep seeing words like restricted being used in here which if that really how you see monogamy then I feel badly for you.

Likewise, my friend. I'm sorry for your lack of freedom. 🙂
(And nope, not being snarky here. I sincerely believe you've chosen to limit the capacity for love your life in way that makes me sad.)

Commitment isn't some horrible curse, it's intimate and special.

To you, maybe. To me, it kills off every chance of intimacy and leaves any relationship an empty, loveless shell - which is okeydokey fine if you go for the good old arranged political marriage avenue and have economic necessity, not love, be the binding glue (yes, a 10th century serf and his wife were very well advised to be committed to each other for life - "for life" meaning an average of at most 15 years until, in all likelihood, the wife would die in childbirth at the ripe old age of 35 - because a legitimate son to inherit the farm is the only retirement plan a man will have, and a woman needs a man to put food on the table), but clashes with the ideal of actually having my social contacts be loving in a modern-day environment. It's just not possible to have both love and exclusive commitment at the same time, unless you go by a definition of love I would consider to fall woefully short of my potential.

 

[theroyalgoat]

Likewise, my friend. I'm sorry for your lack of freedom. 🙂
(And nope, not being snarky here. I sincerely believe you've chosen to limit the capacity for love your life in way that makes me sad.)

Well I guess it all comes down to quanity vs. quality on this one. Let's not be sad for each other.🙂

To you, maybe. To me, it kills off every chance of intimacy and leaves any relationship an empty, loveless shell - which is okeydokey fine if you go for the good old arranged political marriage avenue and have economic necessity, not love, be the binding glue (yes, a 10th century serf and his wife were very well advised to be committed to each other for life - "for life" meaning an average of at most 15 years until, in all likelihood, the wife would die in childbirth at the ripe old age of 35 - because a legitimate son to inherit the farm is the only retirement plan a man will have, and a woman needs a man to put food on the table), but clashes with the ideal of actually having my social contacts be loving in a modern-day environment. It's just not possible to have both love and exclusive commitment at the same time, unless you go by a definition of love I would consider to fall woefully short of my potential.

Lol wow, you seem to be really, really jaded about it for some reason. I don't even know what to say after all that. I'm glad you've found a lifestyle that works for you, but if marrage was really as dark and tormenting as you make it sound it wouldn't be the most important day in so many people's lives. This is the age where we are tossing aside the old traditions that just don't work for us anymore and I really don't see marriage going any where. The people who go into it before they're truely ready are the flaw with marriage, not the institution itself. Something you said in an earlier post has been sticking with me. It was something to the effect of 'I invest in myself' and obviously you're not right now, but I really just don't believe that, that won't get lonely after a while. You could have a hundred best friends with benefits or whichever term you prefer, but in the end your definition of love is lacking. Those clear lines that you've set up are giving you freedom, but at the same time you can't possibly have the same level of intamacy, trust, and security. If either of you are free to leave at the drop of a hat then you've already prepared yourself for the possibility and that's the point that people start to keep each other at arm's length emotionally.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Well I guess it all comes down to quanity vs. quality on this one.

The funny thing being, of course, that I am absolutely convinced that I have both the quality and the quantity... while you have neither. 😉

Lol wow, you seem to be really, really jaded about it for some reason. I don't even know what to say after all that. I'm glad you've found a lifestyle that works for you, but if marrage was really as dark and tormenting as you make it sound it wouldn't be the most important day in so many people's lives.

That's the romantic ideal at work... a dangerous collective delusion that has poisoned long, painful years of my life. I got better, though. 😀

Something you said in an earlier post has been sticking with me. It was something to the effect of 'I invest in myself' and obviously you're not right now, but I really just don't believe that, that won't get lonely after a while.

I don't think so. But even if it would, I would vastly prefer to be lonely than stuck in a loveless relationship. A matter of self-respect, basically.

You could have a hundred best friends with benefits [...]

Nope, just one. "Best" implies singular. That's why, even though you try and disagree, I am not single. My shipmate simply doesn't see the irrational need for her to be my only friend (with or without benefits)... if she did, she wouldn't be my friend (let alone shipmate) in the first place.

[...] in the end your definition of love is lacking. Those clear lines that you've set up are giving you freedom, but at the same time you can't possibly have the same level of intamacy, trust, and security.

I very, very much doubt that. In fact, I know for sure that the level of intimacy, trust, and security I have now would be utterly unthinkable if I were mad enough to poison the atmosphere with exclusivity.

If either of you are free to leave at the drop of a hat then you've already prepared yourself for the possibility and that's the point that people start to keep each other at arm's length emotionally.

Wait... you're saying that as if it's a bad thing?! 😛

Emotions are not a firm enough base for social contact, let alone a ship... and failure to keep an appropriate emotional distance, with the resulting symbiotic muddle of emotionality, is just about the quickest surefire way to make the ship go Titanic. (And I'm talking lethal iceberg here, not "huge and epic". 😀)

 

[Harley]

Polyamory is a valid lifestyle just as being gay, straight or any other is...

Plus it makes for a totally awesome Breaking Benjamin song. 🙂