Gaming and orgies don't mix

[Torm]

Though I usually just call it "polyamory," as I'm somewhat "eh" about the idea of traditional marriage as it's nowadays constructed.

I say "faithful polygyny" because I like to clarify that we aren't swingers, which seems to be what some of the people I've seen call themselves "polyamorous" really are, and polygyn clarifies my sexual preference and my wife's and what we're looking for in a simple, unobtrusive way - 2F 1M triangle, no 'V's. But, yep, it is a form of polyamory.

And I think it may be more normal than people generally think - it is just that the Internet has allowed more and more people who aren't involved in those relationships to hear about such things, since many of us are more comfortable talking about it with a degree of anonymity for safety from the sort of people who attack anything different from themselves.

 

[fusangite]

Surely you don't argue that the only reason to disapprove of a particular set of sexual mores is bigotry; obviously there are certain sexual behaviours that, to a greater or lesser extent, actually merit disapproval. Maybe those of us who dislike relationship pyramid schemes dislike them because of our knowledge thereof, not in spite of it.

And regardless, as I just said, two posts back, even if I had zero problem with the intrinsic nature of the sexual dynamic the couple running the game were trying to bring about, their behaviour was still completely inappropriate. (As I just said two posts back at the bottom of page 4.)

 

[Acquana]

For once I'm with fusangite here. Maybe there are some people who would be antsy with open relationships not because of a lack of understanding ... but a little too much understanding. Honestly I think it's a mistake to become too involved with that sort of thing because well ... I have before. A couple of really good friends of mine have an open marriage, mostly because the man likes women lots and lots and his wife was raised by fiction more than reality and thinks that love between she and her friends should be a bit more encompassing than most are comfortable with.

Although I wasn't involved long, I can comfortably say that the third one just feels like a third wheel ... The drama it caused really wasn't worth what it did to the group dynamic. Thankfully things got better, within a few months I had a new boyfriend and all was well, but I always had the feeling the wife never really let it go.

The important bit is seperating one's pleasures. Really, I'm sure Torm waits until he actually knows people well enough before making any moves ... But sadly from the story that started the thread it looks like not everyone does.

 

[Torm]

Surely you don't argue that the only reason to disapprove of a particular set of sexual mores is bigotry; obviously there are certain sexual behaviours that, to a greater or lesser extent, actually merit disapproval.

I concur - and I believe, personally, that any relationships that would provide an unhealthy or unsafe environment for any children created by or raised in them should be frowned on. Also, any that create an environment for spread of disease (beyond a reasonable point - even straight monogamy does this to a limited degree.)

BUT - the number of relationships that are like this is far less than current society seems determined to enforce against. Stable gay couples have been shown to be perfectly capable of raising healthy children, for example. People frown on all gays, and yet, the REAL problem with them isn't that they are gay, it is the large number of people who happen to be gay who are also irresponsibly promiscuous. (Which in turn could be blamed in part on the fact that society doesn't allow them the same levels of commitment - but I digress.)

People want to make it about all these other things, when really I believe what it should come down to is commitment to take the steps necessary to make sure that their behavior doesn't create undue difficulties for anyone else - especially children.

 

[Michael Morris]

:whew - long thread:

Didn't Marylin Manson once say that every day he played D&D extended his time as a virgin by one day?

I guess he had the wrong group

 

[fusangite]

Stable gay couples have been shown to be perfectly capable of raising healthy children, for example.

No dispute there. I'm a big fan of gay marraige. In part because I think it's wrong for our society to constantly tell gay men that for them sexuality=promiscuity.

For once I'm with fusangite here.

I'm so embarassed. I didn't notice we usually disagreed.

As for your experience there, this is one of the reasons I call polyamory a pyramid scheme. Like any good pyramid scheme, there is a huge power imbalance between the recruiter and the recruit. A new recruit to polyamory has just one partner: the recruiter who, in turn, has one or more additional relationships within the structure. The only way for the people on the bottom level of the pyramid to equalize the power dynamic in their relationship is to recruit new people to scheme so that they also have multiple partners. Having watched polyamorous friends for more than a decade, I have found the structure operates essentially identically to a pyramid scheme: people on the bottom either feel miserable, recruit new members or quit the scheme.

 

[Timeboxer]

Having watched polyamorous friends for more than a decade, I have found the structure operates essentially identically to a pyramid scheme: people on the bottom either feel miserable, recruit new members or quit the scheme.

I feel I should mention that "polyamory" isn't necessarily synonymous with "open relationship" or, in fact, even a necessarily sexual relationship. It just deconstructs the common notion, "You can only love and be faithful to one person at a time," and in fact I would say that if a third person in the relationship is miserable and feels somehow lesser, and this was a misrepresentation of what was essentially emotionally offered beforehand, you aren't really living up to the ideal -- which, at least for me, usually involves living together as a mutually affectionate and honest family.

But then, my experience of polyamorous people has been substantially more positive. So.

 

[Torm]

But then, my experience of polyamorous people has been substantially more positive. So.

Me, too. But I can see what he is saying - and my wife and I did lose a relationship with a woman we went out with briefly because she was convinced that she would never have a relationship with either of us that was on par with what my wife and I have with each other. Not because of some "pyramid scheme-like" desire on our part for it to be that way, but simply because we had known each other longer and had more history together. Mystra nor I felt that way, but I can understand why she did.

And as far as I know, "polyamory" doesn't just not necessarily mean "open relationship", but, rather, it is NEVER supposed to mean that. Of course, as I mentioned before, what some people who call themselves "polyamorous" actually DO may not hold to that - but I don't consider them to BE polyamorous, so much as swingers looking for some sort of legitimacy. And thus my other terminology - trying to clear up being confused with those people.

 

[BOZ]

Sounds like a great beginning for one of those reader mail sections in Hustler.

"Dear Hustler,

You're not going to believe this, and this was something I never expected to happen while playing Dungeons & Dragons, but..."

 

[BOZ]

Okay, so first of all I am the wife involved in this.

My husband and I don't always try to had you going for a second there, didn't I?

you learn something new every day...