so since senna thinks i should contribute more, i thought i'd start a thread
on something i find most puzzling about sex and relationships. it's not as
simple as a question of whether or not 2 people are monogomous, but more of
how jealousy plays into it. does the thought of your partner kissing or
fucking another excite you or make you feel threatened? one argument my friend
had about why she thinks monogomy is the best way is this: "well, what if you
find someone BETTER?" i find it odd that people think this way regarding
sexual relationships, but not platonic ones. 

73 responses total.

I'm confused, I'd think that would be a good reason why polyamory is better,
frankly. If you honestly think that the one you're with is not the best
possible one for you, then why are you with them?

hey, i alwas get turned on when i think of my current gf going at it with
another woman. but that's a WHOLE 'nother item:)
anyway, yha, that's the problem. we try to hold out. <shrug> though ihave
noticed it in the "popular" people tend to suffer more than the lonely.
the lonley tend to be happy with what htey get:)

</ramble>
Taken literally, "the best possible one for you" is 99.9% sure to be a
person who you'll never even meet amid the worlds billions of people.

Considering the divorce rate in our rather-friendly-to-traditional-het-
monogamy society, it's pretty hard to criticize poly.  OTOH, there're
a lot more relationships that need to stay healthy in a triangle than in
a couple - i don't see poly working for more than a small minority. 

Ignoring emotions for a moment, non-sexual relationships tend not to have
issues with STD's, Friend of the Court, etc.  There's fairly good reason
for a strict pragmatist to be a bit more closed about sexual relationships. 
Jealousy seems (to me) to be pretty understandable as a genetic/ego self-
interest thing. 
</end ramble>

re#1: that's just my point. is it fair to judge people against each other?
does there have to be a "best"? does how one feels about one person have
anything to do with how they feel about another?
re#2: and what aboutyour gf with another male?

#4>I've had a few years to develop no-win arguments against monogamy. Here's
this one: If you honestly believe that there's one "best" person out there,
and it's not the one you're with, then you're ill-advised to limit yourself
to that person. If you don't honestly believe there's one"best" person out
there, it's because you realize that different people can fulfill different
emotional needs, which is also a pro-poly argument. *eg*
 
#3> POly is a cat-rat farm, as is any alternative lovestyle: The failure rate
is higher because societal support is lower, and so people who are opposed
to the lovestyle has ammo to keep it marginalized, which keeps failure rates
high. 

It is currently true, in our society, that polyamory requires a higher level
of self-awareness to succeed, because the social support is lacking.

<nod>

Depends on what you mean by "best."  If it's just a better sexual partner with
better proportions that can make you cum a bit better, that's no reason to
leave your current partner.  There's a lot more to a relationship than that.

Yes, and sexual compatibility is of varying importance to different
people. In any case, I think most people have had the experience of being
with someone with whom the were more sexually compatible than personally
(non-sexually)  compatible, and vice-versa. I think a lot of the
attraction towards a "better" is the hope that someone else might offer
more of both. Intellectually, this is easy to understand. Emotionally it
can be difficult to accept that urge, or even that it exists, both for the
person feeling the tugs and for the current partner. 

resp:3 I agree that certain outside issues are a factor (but remind me 
what a Friend of the Court is again?) and drawing such boundaries to 
filter out such problems is a good idea.

I have read brighn's statements regarding polyamory, and it's my 
understanding that boundaries must be set in such an arrangement, 
too.  Granted, they are not the same for monogamy, but they are there, 
nonetheless, so I suppose the given is that any relationship(s) must 
have structure and boundaries of some sort.

If I may back up a bit, it has been my observation that sex creates an 
emotional bond, and I have not only watched the media, but people in 
real life.  I have seen, usually, that old lovers often may be either 
on hostile or friendly grounds-- in reaction to the bond that was 
created-- and rarely, is the feeling one of pure indifference, at 
least from the outset.  Men may be encouraged to downplay it, but I 
think, honestly, there is always still a connection of some kind.

resp:4 and would your gf freak out if for some reason, you decided you 
sexually needed another man?  I know this has been discussed somewhere 
before, but I still fail to understand why femme f-f sex is a male 
fantasy, while the opposite isn't true.

resp:5 I keep wondering why society has been downplaying marriage in 
general.  I mean, not only is it opposed to just polyamory, it's 
specifically unlawful to practice polygamy (or polyandry, for that 
matter) in most world governments.  Now, I don't promote polygamy 
personally (and the LDS church outlawed it years ago-- that topic has 
been discussed here before), but just for the sake of discussion, why 
is that so?  Marriage may not be the ideal option for everyone, but.. 
if someone believed that structure was a strong foundation to build a 
marriage on, why not?

Perhaps the legal implications of marriage could be discussed (in 
another item, if need be)?  It is possible that it makes some legal 
matters easier to deal with and examine, but I am not a legal expert.

(I ran out of steam on that point, and will wait for comments)

resp:7  It's not always proportions, although that's a popular 
choice.  A good deal of the time, it's sexual practice, such as 
desiring a partner who wants 3-way sex, to practice BDSM, etc.

It should be considered that not all needs must be fulfilled by sex, 
so platonic relationships can fulfill a number of them.  We were 
discussing the concept of "brotherly love" that seems to be lacking in 
relations of heterosexual males, or relations between males that are 
not sexual in nature.  

well i think that there can be instances where you find someone you're "more
compatible with" but i'm trying very hard to steer this away from the idea
that sex is quantitative like that. compatibility also has to do with getting
to know a person, figuring out what makes them tick sexually, and being
prepared to experiment and try out new things, so as to learn things about
yourself. sometimes you do meet someone who you just automatically click with
sexually and the sex is great, but then you may not really be emotionally
compatible, so that doesnt leave much after a bit of time. re#9 i find that
seeing 2 men together is very kinky and i like it! esp when .. .. .. 

The only universal attribute of polyamory is that it's not monogamy. ;} That
is, there's the recognition that it's morally acceptable for a person to
develop intimate relations with more than one person, if that winds up
happening. Beyond that, it's always true that relationships will only succeed
if everyone involved has compatible expectations, and most polyamorous
relationships have rules of some sort.

brighn, will you have sex with me?

That depends on whether I find you physically and intellectually attractive
when meeting you. I'm not adverse to the possibility at present.

right on.

This response has been erased.

Um, Jon, I know several females, including myself, who get turned on by
watching two men kissing/petting/etc.

resp:16 whoops.  I went back and realized that I had stated a truism I 
myself didn't really believe.. I mean, in general, I figured that 
while a f-f scene is a male fantasy for quite a number of men (if not 
a majority), I believed that the opposite was more of a minority taste 
for women.

Why is that?  Do women secretly fantasize about two men having sex?  
Perhaps I should ask *why* it's arousing for you, if I'm not being too 
bold.

I can't remember where we discussed the f-f sex fantasy, but we did 
discuss it somewhere-- why the women tended to be femme, and not 
butch; and that usually, the women were described as bisexual.  Even 
if they were described as lesbian, the portrayal was *never* realistic.

Therefore, is the female version of the m-m sex fantasy similar, or 
different?  How does it compare with media preference-- i.e., is such 
a fantasy more arousing when it is in written form, which supposedly, 
women tend to prefer, or when it is more visual, say, by video?  Does 
the content of the fantasy also differ, i.e., would it be similar or 
different from what would be described in various gay media 
(literature, video, or otherwise)?

..that was more where I was trying to get at.

#15 wasn't related. think i'll rewrite it and make it a thread when i'm less
hungover. 
#17 i can't speak for other women or media, but imho it is just plain sexy.
i don't know why, it just is. it also makes fooling around with two men a lot
more fun. i guess i'm speaking more in terms of personal experience than
seeing images or movies, but sex in general doesnt interst me unless i'm some
how involved real time. i am also not generally interested in people who
consider their 'sexual orientation' the major part of their identity as a
person. maybe i can muster up a better response when my brain is functioning
more properly. 

he means by 'friend of the court' parental disagreements, custody battles,
child support, etc.

the most obvious theory about why so many men seem to find f-f sex
interesting: They find watching sex interesting, and because m-f sex is
threatening because it means a DIFFERENT male is succeeding, and m-m sex is
threatening because it interacts with internal gay desires which are in
denial, or is boring because there are no internal gay desires with which to
interact, the only thing that's left for a mildly homophobic heterosexual male
with moderate to low self esteem is f-f sex. Since "mildly homphobic
heterosexual male with moderate to low self esteem" describes the majority
of American males... ;}
 
Of course, hedonists just enjoy watching sex, and make no real distinction
in gender of the participants (even if they're strongly heterosexual, they
can still enjoy *watching* homoerotic situations, if the people involved are
enjoying themselves).

Women enjoy watching two men for just about the same reasons men like watching
two women.  :)  It's fun.

re #20: not neccissarly, they could find watching men on men pretty boring.
or find watching sex boring in and of it's self, as opposed to participating

#21> I disagree. As I said, most men who enjoy watching f-f sex don't enjoy
watching m-m sex, so it's more complicated than "it's fun."

brighn, i agree with #20. but somehow i'm trying to figure out why it's
different for women. meaning, most women who enjoy m-m sex are also not
threatened by f-f or m-f sex either. (i'm assuming). so the notion of these
women enjoying it because they are "mildly homphobic heterosexual females with
moderate to low self esteem" doesnt' seem to apply in exactly the same way.
i've known hetero women who are quite comfortable with m-f AND f-f, but not
m-m. maybe that's just because their boyfriends arent, and they don't want
them to be because THAT would be threatening. so maybe it all boils down to
the same point anyway - feeling threatened/insecure. bisexuality is something
that seems to be accepted among women, but not as much among men. bi men are
often just seen as gay, even though they dig women too. while bi women are
just seen as being sexually liberated and kinky. so a woman accepting m-m may
feel that that also means she must accept the fact that her male partner could
be turned on by men as well, which could make her paranoid that her lover may
be gay, which threatens her. (and maybe that strap-on just ain't her thang.
;P) make sense? (and hedonists just plain aren't bothered by all the societal
pressures and emotional insecurities, but i think there are many different
forms of hedonism.)

Oh, I was saying "it's fun" in reference to myself.  I don't know why other
women like watching it.  I think it's because men are sexy, and having TWO
sexy men doing sexy things is just...sexy.  ;-)

so, in part at least, similiar reasons.

#24> I did kind of address that. Women's sexual insecurities in our culture
tend to be in different realms than men's sexual insecurities, so they're
threatened by different things. There's always going to be a component of
people who just enjoy watching, and don't carry a lot of baggage into it.
*shrug* 

Oh, I remember what I was going to say.  One of the reasons that I often find
it more interesting to watch (recordings of) f-f sex, as opposed to m-f 
or m-m, is that, for some odd reason, it's often more artistic.  It's sometimes
very sensual, very erotic, in the sense that there's a difference between 
erotica and porn.  Not always, or even often, of course; most "girl on 
girl action" is porn of the least interesting kind, but the rare exceptions
seem to be less rare than for hetero sex.  

#28> I'd agree with that, from my own viewing experiences.

i'd also like to share that brighn asked me the other day in party if i am
in fact a "cock tease". now, the fact that we live several states away from
each other aside, what exactly makes a person a cock tease? i mean, does this
really exist or is it just something men say when a woman gets turned off?
or even if she's just teasing you? some people get off on being teased a
little. it makes the actuality of it happening that much more intense. but
that actuality often never happens when people act like impatient children
- right brighn?
maybe it's just the way that "mildly homphobic heterosexual males with
moderate to low self esteem" behave.
please clarify.

For the record, I was just being silly, not making a serious accusation, so
I'm a little taken aback at the nastiness of #30. But I'll answer the
question.
 
I call women "cock teases" when it is apparent that they have no interest
whatsoever in backing up their seductive behavior (and I've used the term for
females in whom I had no interest, or whose behavior wasn't directed at me).
Sure,it's a fine distinction: People flirt all the time with no intentions
to follow up; so do I. But there's a difference between that and, say,
bouncing on someone's lap and stroking their cheek, and then openly laughing
or looking surprised when the person tries to follow up.

cock teases otherwise known as "scary bitches", "fifteen year old girls" and
"dancers and actresses"
oh, "vamps", "courtisans" etc.
the idea is to seduce someone, and then give da old "what? with you? hah.
that's a laugh"

Greg put it more succinctly than I did. =}

<bow>
i have names if you need examples.
i went to a school filled with these people.
such bets as "who can get the most money out of a guy before doing anything"
"who looses thier virginity last but has the most boys trailing them"
yha

I've seen 'em on Jenny Jones, too. Girls who play guys for all sorts of
expensive gifts, and then don't put it.*

*That's not to say that the only reason for giving a woman a gift is so that
she'll give you sex. Not harldy. But when a guy gives you a Mercedes because
you bounce on his lap and squeeze his crotch, I think the implication is
pretty strong WHY he gave you the Mercedes, and if you don't want to put out,
give the Mercedes back.

I didn't mean for #30 to be taken very nasty. just as you didnt think your
behavior in party should be taken nasty i guess. your posts are fairly well
written and you seem mature and witty in bbs. so i was taken aback by how you
behaved. in any case, i agree it's quite rude to act sexually interested in
someone and then make them feel dumb for reciprocating the interest. do you
think there are people that encourage this behavior? seems there are a lot
of people, who, once they *know* they can sleep with someone whenever they
want, they are no longer interested. (this is the part where things go back
to the original header "sex and ownership".)

And i refuse to acknowledge the guests of jenny jones (or anyone suitable to
*be* a guest on that show) as people to use as an example of anything besides
stupidity.

ok, i went to school with these people

High School?

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss