kissing a guy = kissing a girl?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn

I would be of the opinion that the more people children have in their lives that love and respect them then the better.

I do know polyamorous couples and polyamorous collectives that have children.

Yes as when ever there are children they have to be considered and catered for first
but that does not mean that the adults once that is done can't get on with living thier
lives and what ever arrangements suits them all the best.

For the most part the children due to thier innocence grow up unware and then accepting
of how things are and they do not need to know about their parent's sex lives no more
then any children growing up and when it gets to the stage where they are asking questions
they do need to be answered honestly and openly in a way that is suitable.

No more differently then chats that I have had with my two brats about how
myself and their dad are no longer a couple and don't do kisses.

astrofool

shellyboo wrote: »

Lol, no red mist here. Is it not ok to argue an opinion passionately anymore?



Not necessarily, because there are reasons a monogamous relationship might fail that don't apply to a non-monogamous on. For example, someone else catches one partner's eye, they have sex, OH finds out, disaster, breakup, etc.

Also, monogamous relationships tend to be less open and honest than non-monogamy simply because non-monogamy demands a greater level of honesty due to how complicated it is, and the fact that the boundaries are discussed and rigidly applied.

So you have to take into account the advantages of non-monogamy, the ways in which it is more secure than monogamy... and I'd say there's really no difference in which is more likely to fail. I just don't accept the point that it's an unworkable system.





My argument isn't that one is better than the other... I'm saying that they're equally valid, equally acceptable. It's other people that are saying that polyamoury is 'asking too much' and therefore lesser than monogamy.

Would your male partner also be allowed to kiss the girl that you are allowed to kiss? If he kissed another guy, do you think you should be allowed to kiss him to?

Loomis

shellyboo wrote: »

My argument isn't that one is better than the other... I'm saying that they're equally valid, equally acceptable. It's other people that are saying that polyamoury is 'asking too much' and therefore lesser than monogamy.

And I'd agree.
But you didn't argue that. You assumed we think it's Satan's work when all we did was give reasons why we think it wouldn't work and you started the "my approach is better than yours" angle. I'm sure it can work for people but I can just see lots of ways why it wouldn't. I think it's asking too much to put aside my feelings for someone because they want to get their rocks off with someone else. Hence I wouldn't do it. You feel you can so obviously it's not asking too much for you. To the majority it is asking too much: to the majority it doesn't make it lesser than monogamy. And since no one in the past 3 pages or so has said this I don't see why you're screaming that at us.
Make your point all you like about it being equally valid but no one is disputing it. Make your point all you want that it's not lesser than monogamy and people shouldn't look down on you cause of how you live but no one is disputing it. Again, no one is saying any of that. Another poster said they were going in circles with you and now I'll say the same. No matter what is said to you you keep replying with "monogamy isn't better than polygamy" which isn't being said so I don't see much point in continuing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

shellyboo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In theory, certainly... in practice, I would imagine it would be very, very hard work to continue to be polyamorous without it affecting your children in some way. Obviously, the more people there are to love a child, the better; but you could have a situation where children are meeting "friends" of their parents who are moving in and out of their lives, which I don't really think is fair - I'd be of the same opinion with a single person raising young children, I don't think it's fair to let them get attached to someone if there's a good chance that person's not going to be sticking around.

So to answer your question, yes, but only if it's done very carefully with respect to protecting the kids from any negative consequences.

astrofool wrote: »

Would your male partner also be allowed to kiss the girl that you are allowed to kiss? If he kissed another guy, do you think you should be allowed to kiss him to?

No to both questions, unless of course it was some sort of threesome situation... but that's really not the issue

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All relationships and marriages and familys have the potential to turn into a right mess, so whats your point exactly ?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

America is such a messed up place but it's growing and thankfully changing.
Poly families, communes and those who have more then one 'wife' is nothing new there at all. And it is not that judges and socail workers don't get it wrong like the children who here taken into care in the uk wrongly during the satanic panic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Crivens lad that is a polite inquiry heavens help you if I was to get het up.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have never stated that polyamory was for everyone.
I haven't even stated if it is or not my personal preference or choice.

What I have said is that alternate relationships and alternate families are not
lesser then the hetronormative traditional models and people should have choices and their choices respected.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn

Yes they do but while I can not compel respect I try and dispel some of the ignorance which surrounds the topic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thing is there is very little that people get up to in terms of human sexuality that has not been going on for millennia tbh.

And have people thinking your "The General"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coffee_cake

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The judge was acting on a petition from Alana's paternal grandmother arguing that the threesome's relationship revealed such "depravity" that it could "endanger the morals or health" of the little girl
...
In the Divilbiss case, four sets of independent, court-appointed experts concluded that Alana should be returned to her mother.

What's that got to do with anything? A conservative old granny dislikes the idea and makes a fuss, everyone concludes there's nothing wrong?

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Someone should have given him or told to him the sections of Brehon law pertaining to marriages
be they of one night or of taking more then one spouse
and having extra marital rights to sleep with who you wanted.

Now the priests may have wanted us to think that was the case sure
why else was Cuirt an Mheadhon Oidhche banned.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Monkey61

What this is boiling down to at this stage is that some people are into monogamy and some people aren't.

This isn't a gender issue. I have a bit of a problem with somebody saying the reason that they can't do monogamy is because they are bisexual. It's not. It's because you can't do monogamy. It's not a gender issue. It's because one partner can't be enough for you. And that's fine as long as your partner is fine with that too.

Surely a lot of people would want to kiss other people while they are in relationships - but they don't. It's not okay for a girl to say to her boyfriend "Hey darling can I go and kiss that curly haired American guy over there, cos I love you and all but you're bald and Irish and I really have a thing for running my fingers through curly hair," because that would automatically be seen as a threat to the relationship.

I just hate the sometimes prevailing attitude I have noticed whereby same sex dalliances are okay, but opposite sex ones aren't - because it's entirely heteronormative and implies that in the hierarchy of things, same sex experiences are somehow less and are completely nonthreatening to heterosexual relationships.

coffee_cake

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well that seems to argue more for scrutinising judges so they don't get away with "taking liberties" more than anything else as no fewer than four appointed experts found in favour of the family...
I get your point I suppose but that's not the best of examples

Madame Razz

Whats sauce for the goose may or may not be sauce for the gander.

It's entirely dependant on the relationship at hand to be honest, and the two people in that relationship, what they both are comfortable with and/or what they reach agreement on.

hot2def

Thaedydal wrote: »

But the idea of the happy ever after one day my prince/ess will come and
people going off into the sunset to live happily ever after is bullshít which needs debunking.
Life is more complex then that, people are more complex then that.

hey hold up, you can't seriously complain about people trying to define a relationship what you perceive to be narrow terms and then say this with a straight face, can you?


I'm sorry the above has never happened to you, but you can't say it never does....

randylonghorn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure, but as has already been said, monogamous relationships which go wrong can also turn into a right mess for the kids ... I understand, btw, that you are not denying that.

And I actually kind of agree that when more people are involved, the potential for messiness rises ... but that's almost more about maths and probability theory than relationships tbh.

What I think this case proves tbh is that "normal" society and it's legal system is less able to deal with any situation which it sees as non-normative ... and that judges are perfectly capable of abusing their authority to push their personal moral prejudices.

I note especially that 4 experts appointed by the court itself were all ignored when their reports did not suit the judge's point of view.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He did ... but then given that he probably thought he was the second coming and the result of another immaculate conception, his views weren't really all that inconsistent!! :pac:

Monkey61 wrote: »

I just hate the sometimes prevailing attitude I have noticed whereby same sex dalliances are okay, but opposite sex ones aren't - because it's entirely heteronormative and implies that in the hierarchy of things, same sex experiences are somehow less and are completely nonthreatening to heterosexual relationships.

I know what you mean, and it's a common enough view ... and I have to say that on an emotional rather than a logical basis, I can kind of understand it. I'm not sure it's always heteronormative tbh ... it's more to do with the fact that I as a man would feel far more threatened / demeaned by having my partner "prefer" another man (not that I would be especially delighted by either, and would feel totally betrayed in either case if it was happening behind my back). It's down to the "what can he give her that I can't?" question ... at least I could understand that I couldn't be a woman for her!!! :pac:

hot2def

i think that various people in this thread have forgotten that we were collectively *asked* our opinions on this issue, and that some people feel differently than you.

I didn't notice anyone advocating marauding death squads to wipe out the polyamourus, nor hired goons to enforce compulsory open relationships.




on a seperate note:


in my opinion, you can define the boundaries of your relationships, and mentaly explore your own feelings til you are blue in the face, but it will only clear up issues realated to you yourself. Whether you like it or not, monogamous relationships *are* the norm, and statistically, when you meet a new potential partner it is likely that it will be expected. Virtually all people were raised to believe that it is the way relationships work, and even if you have thought *really hard* about it, it is tough to shake off all that baggage. And even once you are certain that you have, it will be a long search for someone else who has, and I wouldn't expect life to be convienient enough for you to fall for that person.


I am not saying it doesn't work - I'm a decade into my relationship, and we have both been with other people. But I would argue that our success has been based on the fact that neither of us is niave enough to believe the is no strain/jealousy involved, nor tell oursleves wierd shlt like "it doesn't count if...". I feel only someone inexperienced with long term open relationships would espouse such a simple get-out clause.

astrofool

shellyboo wrote: »

No to both questions, unless of course it was some sort of threesome situation... but that's really not the issue

Well, that makes you a hypocrite, which is fine, if your partner is ok with it

AnnieB82

I'm glad it would bother you, as it should. It would certainly bother me if my boyfriend was kissing a guy. That said if it was just a joke between two straight girls, or even 2 straight guys that were friends, I would probably find it funny.

shellyboo

Monkey61 wrote: »

This isn't a gender issue. I have a bit of a problem with somebody saying the reason that they can't do monogamy is because they are bisexual. It's not. It's because you can't do monogamy. It's not a gender issue. It's because one partner can't be enough for you. And that's fine as long as your partner is fine with that too.

Oh without a doubt, I wasn't implying that at all! Just from my perspective, if I was in a relationship, I wouldn't be seeking other male partners, but I might like to explore same-sex relationships... so I guess there's a whole spectrum of options really.

Monkey61 wrote: »

I just hate the sometimes prevailing attitude I have noticed whereby same sex dalliances are okay, but opposite sex ones aren't - because it's entirely heteronormative and implies that in the hierarchy of things, same sex experiences are somehow less and are completely nonthreatening to heterosexual relationships.

I wouldn't say nonthreatening, but in a lot of cases, perhaps less threatening? Of course, there are no absolutes, but for a lot of bi people they tend to lean more towards one gender, and relationships with the other gender are rarely as serious...

But it's not to do with same sex = ok, opposite sex = wrong... these are the things that need to be defined within the context of your relationship.

astrofool wrote: »

Well, that makes you a hypocrite, which is fine, if your partner is ok with it

Why does it make me a hypocrite? Because I'd like to have a threesome but I wouldn't like my partner to kiss another girl by himself? In that case, most people are hypocrites.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Monkey61

shellyboo wrote: »

I wouldn't say nonthreatening, but in a lot of cases, perhaps less threatening? Of course, there are no absolutes, but for a lot of bi people they tend to lean more towards one gender, and relationships with the other gender are rarely as serious...

That's actually a really interesting perspective. I think I personally use a slightly different definition of bisexual. I would only use it to mean those who are equally able to form emotional attachments to both genders. For instance all the people I know who would call themselves bisexual, would have equally serious relationships with both genders - though often more heterosexual ones due to opportunity and probability.

shellyboo

Monkey61 wrote: »

That's actually a really interesting perspective. I think I personally use a slightly different definition of bisexual. I would only use it to mean those who are equally able to form emotional attachments to both genders. For instance all the people I know who would call themselves bisexual, would have equally serious relationships with both genders - though often more heterosexual ones due to opportunity and probability.

I use that definition too!! But in reality, not all people who are bisexual define themselves that way... so that's kind of the point of view I was taking. A lot of people who sleep with both men and women would say they're bisexual, but exclusively or almost exclusively date either men or women... I think that's actually the more accepted understanding of the term.

I've expressed the above opinon - that bisexuality is defined by the relationships you have and not the sex you have - on boards before and was universally shot down.

Anyway, back to the point I was making! I wouldn't call myself bisexual (since I don't think I could be in relationship with a woman) but I'm definitely interested in women... so for me, a same-sex encounter wouldn't be threatening to my relationship, whereas an opposite sex one would.