Overeducated &amp; Unemployable

This sort of relationship would not suit me... I understand their mutual respect and trust in each other, and I would never force my views as 'the right way' on others, but I do worry for a number of reasons:

1. I see my body, my love and my intimacy as a unique and precious treasure. There is no other like me, and when I give myself to another, I am giving something truly special and they will know that and respect it. If I give myself to many or share parts of me, then I believe it de-values the one thing I can give.

2. I'm not sure many people are as able as this couple to control jealousy, trust integrity and honour the marriage vow. I think it's the 'married' bit that disturbs me. Why bother?

3. Continuing to have sexual relationships after entering into a long term commitment with another leaves both parties constantly open to the temptation to end the relationship. It, IMO, fosters the breakdown of monogamy and all that marriage stands for.

4. There's always the danger of the third parties becoming over-obsessed and demanding, leading to tension within the marriage.

5. Would it be easy to desist from this sort of lifestyle should children come along? Or would the assumption be that children make no difference and things carry on as usual? Would the pair have doubt about the parentage?

The sort of open relationship discussed here is something I keep firmly in my fantsy world. Open marriage, bisexual fun, orgies, all the other forms of sexual practice that happen outside of the doors of my marriage or not mutually enjoyable in the relationship. I would never take the moral high ground and enforce my lifestyle because I know full well I'd be an intellectual hypocrite... I'm tempted, sometimes green with envy, but as the old saying goes - I've made my bed, I shall lie in it.

In talking to my daughters, I've explained how I came to my lifestyle choice and have tried to impress upon them how precious a gift they give when they choose to share themselves intimately with another. How they choose to live that, in their lives, will be their choice. I can only hope whatever choices they make they only find pleasure and happiness in them.

Going to read some smut now and try not to sulk at what I might be missing... *WINKS*

From:

Your remarks are valuable, Chrissie. I, myself, don't believe in marriage. I know what I mean for P and what he means for me. Marriage would only be an institutionalisation of this, making sure that when one of us dies the other one doesn't end up with nothing. It's the jealousy that makes things tricky. I would be severely hurt, if I knew P would have an intimate relationship with another woman. On the other hand, I do not know if I would be as hurt if this relationship wasn't intimate on the intellectual level, but only when we're talking about matters of the flesh. Hell, I'm talking way too hypothetical here. That usually means I'm okay with everything, until it happens.

Having a third party there and not only the occasional fling, makes things more complicated I think. We're all grown up with this view of romantic love, meaning giving everything you have to your partner and I think that's important. My partner is my best buddy, my friend, my sex toy, my everything. He comes first. You are correct in assuming third parties might want more, which means: enter the bigamous relationship. That only works if you all agree and feel like it. Or if you've grown up in a society that validates this kind of relationship.
There is a distinction, I think, between having a steady relationship and cheating, and actually ending up in a relationship like the one Prof. B. experiences, namely a bigamous one, with feelings of love for both parties. I do have the feeling she still puts the husband first, though...

Well, this couple has a kid, referred to as "pseudonymous kid" on the blog. I don't think there was a third party involved when he came into being... A friend of mine who reads the blog (still reading now, luv?) is actually convinced he'll start behaving when kids are involved. I've had numerous conversations with him about his ... erm ... well the simple fact he follows his dick. One thing always comes up in everything he says: once he has a girlfriend, she shouldn't know what he does with other women when she isn't around. You cannot control jealousy. But you also cannot control completely what your body wants. I do believe anyone can be seduced -- even you Chrissie. (Shall I tie James Marsters to a bedpost for you?)

You say you came to your lifestyle choice and I think that's an important message you give there. People make choices based on what they go through in life. You can read in Prof. B.'s recount of things they chucked out the rule of being faithful, but not before they felt this would work between them! It's all about how you come to know each other and how you grow attached to each other. We do not know if they would have ended up being a couple if one of them would have objected to not being faithful.
Saying you won't be faithful of course leaves the door open for the multiple relationships. If you are faithful, you won't even think about sex with another. Once you've considered that you end up on a slippery slope, I think, and then we're in your remark number 3: the question whether it's better with that other guy/girl, although your own relationship is working very well.

From:

I think I agree with everything you said Frances. I think...

I don't think it's easy, when entering any intimate relationship, to disassociate the physical act of sex, the emotional interaction or the intellect. Unless we're talking one-night-stands, but I don't class that as intimate. That's usually a man following his dick or a woman getting an itch scratched.

The sort of relationships suggested in the piece you linked to were a tad more intimate and were definately thought about before being acted upon. That tends to mean intimacy is being achieved. In that case it really becomes difficult to seperate emotions, and for the relationship to continue beyond the very short term, intellectual compatibility of some sort will be needed. Take it from a woman whose first monogamous marriage had masses of physical and emotional chemistry but lacked any intellectual harmony. In the end that caused jealousy, feelings of inadequacy and resulted in a very violent culmination.

In truth today, I would not recommend marriage to my children. I'm not sure if I even truly believe in deep passionate love, but I do know that I committed to fidelity in this marriage and I will adhere to that commitment. I did not marry for love but for other reasons. spouse is a dear lovely man and I love him for who he is, kind, caring, generous, protecting. All the things I needed to secure a safe and stable future for me and two sprogs... in return I gave him what he wanted, and he's blissfully happy.

If I had my time over again, I'd probably have a more relaxed attitude to sex and relationships. Oh, who am I kidding, I WOULD have a more relaxed attitude AND I'd probably act on it. Of course I jump JM's bones if he was nekkid and in my bed. Jeez, five hours of that would be the highlight of my life! I'd die with a smile on my face then, for sure! At least until that one person, the one who I loved body and soul and who loved me in that way, came riding in on his white charger. I couldn't be in that relationship though and still play the field. I'm a jealous person and would never agree to share my one true love with anyone else... and if I were his one true love, he wouldn't share me either. We'd be creative enough to always please each other!

From:

Well, although I'm as old as your oldest son, I'm still looking for that relaxed attitude towards sex and relationships. If I could do things over, even I would do them differently!!

But what you said, is exactly what I was trying to say. If we're talking one-night-stand it's a simple physical lust that needs filling. Intellectual harmony otoh is very important. It's why I ended up in the relationship I'm in now.

I think the true love is a retroactive thing. True love grows. It doesn't come like a knight in a shining armour to save you from the dragon. I ain't no damsel in distress anyway. ;-)

From:

This sounds more of a sister/brother relationship that a wife/husband one IMO...

Now I've always been intrigued by incest between siblings, you know like in that play by John Ford "Tis pity she was a whore" but that's another story...

Chani

From:

I don't know the play, but I do know you want passion with only one person at a time, petite Méditerranéenne. ;-)
Doesn't the passion fade when we learn to know each other better? (But now I have the feeling both you and Chrissie will disagree -- and so will my own imagination...)

Go read my reply to Chrissie. It says partly how I feel and think. But only partly...

From:

Well I'm probably quite a one-man woman when it comes to love indeed.

For instance I wouldn't mind a bisexual threesome (like Harmony said boy + boy + girl...but no Charlize Theron!), because man on man action turns me on (I can't believe I'm writing that on a public place!)but I wouldn't do that with a man I love.

Passion might fade but love grows when you know each other better. I've always thought that love takes time. You can get strongly and quickly infatuated with someone but you don't love someone you barely know as deep as you love a 20 years partner.
I don't even understand the idea that one quits loving someone. Sometimes people can't stay together, our lives are much longer now, but I don't get the "I don't love you anymore" speech...

We love our parents and our siblings, or our friends because of the years we have shared with them. They are rooted in our hearts. Same with a romantic love. The difference is that, when it comes to a romantic love, there's a kind of chemical addiction to the other and some strong hormonal sense of property hence the jealousy IMO.

That's why I said that the relationship you mentioned in your entry sounds more like a relationship between sibling.

From:

I don't understand it either if you say "I don't love you anymore". It's more about being compatible, being able to live together. People can grow apart. Maybe saying that you don't love the other person anymore is just a way of expressing that what once was isn't there anymore. The previous feelings have gone, but nothing else came to take their place. It's like that love has gone, like you've grown cold to the other person.
Damn, I sound like I'm experienced. I must read to many woman's magazines. ;-)

Can I just say "I agree"?

But I wouldn't mind a girl/girl/boy threesome. ;-) (And NO Charlize Theron *g*)

From:

I agree... over time the need to 'impress' in the physical act becomes less important, because the bond between two people in love deepens so much there is a chemical and emotional merging of the two... sex shouldn't disappear though. Two compatible partners, over time, will actually take time to explore sex in a far more meaningful way, so that it becomes a form of praise and mutual grooming, if you like. A way of reinforcing the admiration for each other.

When it comes to threesomes, I agree with Frances, I'd be more inclined toward a girl, girl boy thing... with me directing things - of course! Slash just doesn't do anything for me at all.

From:

Well I guess that on Kinsey's homosexuality scale, Frances and you are closer to the middle than me. Women don't do a thing for me. But two men taking err..care of me is appealing. And I think that two men kissing and doing things to each other is one of the most erotic sights ever...well along with Spike and the crypt door in "Dead Things" of course! lol

Having said that, I can't stand Slash Spike fanfiction...except in Herself's "Lovingkindness" and in "Sweet William" that you are reading again.

BTW the vocabulary is strange...why is man on man action called slash and girl on girl is not?

I've never understood that slash word btw...

From:

candlelightfrot.livejournal.com

Well, of course, two men is!
Why doesn't anything you have said here surprise me?

From:

LOL

From:

Because you already know all my kinks...well mostly!

;- )

From:

Hey, I'm also very much turned on by m/m fanfic. (Been shipping Spangel for a while now, haven't I?) And two men kissing? Rrrrrrrowrrrrr.

But yes, I tend to the middle of Kinsey's scale... (Always have btw)
So if anyone would ask for a threesome, I'd go "Yes!" without even wondering if it's two men or two women. *g*

At least you're the exception to the rule me and some friends made up: every woman is bisexual. I'd prefer to say every person is somewhat bisexual, but that didn't work out very well. ;-)

From:

Funny because I would say that every man is bisexual! lol

They have a prostate and for them the tighter the better so...

I'm sure I am not the exception to your rule, otherwise Kinsey's scale would be pointless.

It's just that the female body doesn't turn me on the slightless...au contraire!

From:

I meet more bisexual women than I meet bisexual men. Men tend to be completely heterosexual or homosexual. Is it because they are always focused on one thing at a time??

The female body does turn me on.

I think I just outed myself as queer. Well yeah, there you have it. ;-)

From:

Well men are just coward!

It's more comfortable to think you are either hetero or homo. You know where you stand then.

I also think that it's a men's fantasy that every woman is bi, and we live in a men's world. Look at the porn that is made for men!

Men often follow their dicks but we tend to be more imagination-oriented, and our mental world is partly built by the society we live in.

For instance in the 20's, many women experimented with sapphism in France. It was directly tied to the war and its consequences, men were brute then.

Well I'm off now, I'm a brunch with a friend.

From:

I meant I'm GOING TO HAVE a brunch with a friend...she isn't going to eat me!

LOL

From:

I read it correctly, dear. Have fun. *bisous*

From:

I think I'm still fumbling around in the closet, and with my sense of direction and abject cowardice I'll probably never come out! If someone could shove a SpikeBot and an AngelinaJolieBot in here, I'll be quite happy. *grins dreamily*

From:

I do admit I never acted on my queer urges... And I prefer living together with men. Some queer am I.

*jumps in closet with Chrissie*

*cops a feel before being shoved out by SpikeBot*

*grins and straightens skirt before walking off*

Great closet btw. Is that a built-in bed or just heaps of pillows?

From:

comava.livejournal.com

The term slash comes from the slash inbetween the male names - like Spike/Angel (although technically, any pairing could be called slash in that case!). And girl on girl is often called femslash.

And I like reading both. ;-.)

From: