The question is, do you mind all the people who say they are sleeping with your children's mother.

They are reaching that age. I can come over to OH and you and I can get monkey masks and bats and scare the s**t out of any kid who says that to your lovely off springs. Just offering.

f**k... I didn't think about that. I will kill those little b*****ds... in a few years, just as soon as they turn 18 and it is legal to kill them.

No no, you got it all backwards, when they turn 18 its legal to sleep with them, but we have already stated that you are a one woman man. I dont know if that opens you up to doing the young 18 year old male genre.

You can kill them any time you want. Infact, the younger the better. Beat them up and just say he was trying to pick pocket you. They will have to believe you, you have a civil war mustache.

*Ahem* Polyamorous and such.


/jack

I think what you said makes a WHOLE lot of sense. (We don't have to take our shirts off and fight now, unless you want to!)

That being said, most poly relationships I know of are NOT one night stands, but long lasting friendships with other couples, who do "normal" things with them as well....movies, dinner, etc. It isn't all just about the sex.

You can wiki anything now! Not a rick roll, I promise!

ABC News reporter John Stossel produced an investigative report into the lifestyle. Stossel reported that over 4 million people are swingers, according to estimates by the Kinsey Institute and other researchers. He also cited Terry Gould's research, in which Gould concluded that "couples swing in order to not cheat on their partners." When Stossel asked swinging couples whether they worry that their spouse will "find they like someone else better", one male interviewee replied, "People in the swinging community swing for a reason. They don't swing to go out and find a new wife;" while a woman interviewee asserted, "It makes women more confident -- that they are the ones in charge." Stossel interviewed twelve marriage counselors about the lifestyle. According to Stossel, "not one of them said don't do it", though some also said "getting sexual thrills outside of marriage can threaten a marriage". Nevertheless, the swingers whom Stossel interviewed claimed that "their marriages are stronger because they don't have affairs and they don't lie to each other

There is alot of work with TWO people in a marriage, so imagine the problems and issues you can have when you multiply that and add more into the mix. Taking the plunge will not *FIX* or make your relationship better, if you do not have a solid base to begin with.

But if all parties can openly communicate their feelings (and I know that issues and jealousy still come up sometimes regardless how strong the base is) it can be dealt with. How many normal people just eat their feelings and desires without ever telling their Significant other how they really feel?

The only thing I will say, is our Tattoo artist, (who is a swinger) goes between AZ and Ohio with his two shops. His wife is a dear soul, but she has a major drinking problem. (she was hospitalized a few mos ago and cannot touch alcohol for a yr as her liver is badly damaged) I know of many in that circle who drink to excess.

If I gotta get hammered all the time to do anything, then the lifestyle ain't for me. But it seems that their are many alcoholics in the lifestyle for some reason and DUI's to go along with them.

The lifestyle people in general are more respectful of boundaries and flirting in public than any vanilla people I run into. I have seen girls at a normal bar come up to my hubby and start grinding on him or asking him to dance and I wanna jump up and dot their eyes.

Yet, if Mrs Tattoo wanted to dance, (at a normal bar) she would ask ME, if it is ok, or if I minded if they go out and cut a rug while I nurse my capt and coke and sit at the bar. She respects that hubby and I are together and acknowledges that I am even there. Even though we are friends!

Does that make sense?

Regarding religion in all this, I am on the fence. Would I burn in hell if I had good friends who I slept with while married? I don't know. I would hope not. I am an ex Catholic, so I torment myself with my fate all the time!! lol

None of this was directed at you, Chinook, I wanted to say I liked what you said. Is your shirt off yet??

pleasesayyes pleasesayyes pleasesayyes pleasesayyes pleasesayyes pleasesayyes pleasesayyes pleasesayyes pleasesayyes pleasesayyes pleasesayyes pleasesayyes

sex, lust and human attraction are very powerful things - innate, animal instincts if you will.

in open relationships such as what is described here, there has to be feelings of jealousy or envy to a certain degree albeit large or small.

denial and/or repression of those feelings is highly probable (in an open relationship) and it serves as a means to cope with the jealousy and envy.

i see open relationships as both a coping mechanism for an insecure person and also a cause for personal insecurity.

keep in mind we are all insecure to a certain degree - we all just use different mechanisms to counter that insecurity.

ultimately individuals make their own choices and must deal with the consequences of those choices, good or bad.

It think the above statement contradicts itself.

Polygamy is, if not catered for, at least acknowledged in our physiology.

You may not know this, but there is more than one type of sperm. There are, as it goes, three categories.

Number one you have the fertilisers - Mark Spitz with a tail, their one and only aim is to swim to the egg first and stick their head in it*. These are the ones you'd expect.

The other two types are slightly more surprising.

Type two are defensive sperm. They don't swim so well and have very little aspiration towards fertilisation. What they do do though is hang out it big gangs. They link tails with other defensive sperm and form nets that will hinder the progress of any sperm that get in behind them.

The third type are possibly the most ingenious - offensive sperm**. A tiny bit of sperm back story is needed here. Up at the very tip of the sperm is an organelle called the acrosome. The acrosome contains enzymes that are released when the sperm makes content with the egg. The nature of these enzymes is to denature, or in other words, to digest a small part of the egg cell wall to allow entry.

The offensive sperm use their acrosome in a different way. They track down sperm from other men and attack them by releasing the contents of their acrosome on them.

That's right - kamikaze sperm attack***.

Now you could, I suppose, argue that these sperms are either gay or would qualify for the short bus, except for this; the number of sperm assigned to each role varies based on a man's perception of how likely a rival is. That is to say that if a man is confident in the monogamy of a situation, almost all of his sperm are the fertilising kind. The more sure he is that he is not the only one watering his horse at that bend in the river, the more of the offensive and defensive sperm he produces.

Of course it can only be inference and supposition, but the most likely thing to infer from this is that this mechanism exists as a result of prolonged and extensive polygamy either in humans or human ancestors, ergot, we are built for polygamy.

But of course this is the "nature" argument, and in our largely "unnatural" society, whether or not something is natural is always only ever a small part of the picture. Emotional and social conditioning means that many people's gut instinct is that it is somehow wrong, corrupt or antisocial. Ultimately though it's like karaoke or line dancing - it may not be to your taste, but so long as no-one gets hurt there's no real harm in it.




*For those of you who don't know, Mark Spitz was an astoundingly good swimmer. Not a man with a passion for sticking his head in eggs.

**And no, before anyone says, I don't mean the smell.

***Quit thinking about bukakke. Seriously. Quit it.

anyone else wondering why he knows so much about sperm?

I did not know about the types of sperm and am much to afraid to do a google search to confirm any of this.

I've heard about this, but had forget about it. I've also heard that a man will produce less sperm when he knows of the whereabout of his mate at all times. If he's been seperated from her for a while, he will produce more sperm.

I wasn't, but now I am.

Thanks. Ugh.

I am too jaded by Google for it to hold fear for me. True story - I was trying to find an image of the four horsemen of the apocalypse the other day and found myself sighing with resignation rather than shock, indignation or even arousal when I found filth quite early on.

But I digress.

You might find this interesting.

In general it is quite relevant to the topic at hand too.

I'm confused to the whole multiple partner thing. I just don't understand why a person would want any more than one.

I <3 you, you fact filled man you!

There's tons of biological evidence for engaging in multiple sexual relationships being more common than culturally acknowledged. The very shape of the penis for example--it effectively removes fluids in the canal prior to discharging, and that discharge occurs most often when placed to minimize the swimming distance to the egg (ie, fully inserted).

That said, I'm happy with one man. Don't have any wants that aren't fulfilled by him. As for what others do...meh. Doesn't affect me, so why should I care?

That said, polyamour strictly means loving more than one person. Of course it's possible to love many people. The types of love can vary widely, with no reason for competition between them. Polyamour doesn't specify any sort of sexual relationship. Possibly it's being used that way...

I need to apologize/explain that I get really worked up over things I'm passionate about. I also need to stop getting so worked up over things I'm passionate about. I don't mean offence. If I act like an a*****e, just tell me I'm being an a*****e. Usually I realize it and then stop.

But no, my shirt is not off. Yet. It's Friday night, I'm having the girls over for drinks.... so the shirt might disappear before the clock strikes midnight. We'll see. I always lose at cards!!

It's ok chickie, I am passionate about things too. I can't ever tell anyone that they are an a*****e, because I always doubt they are and that maybe *I* am being to overly sensitive.

We just can't talk about seals. ;)

/looks at cards and lays out (clubs, too...lol)



Lose the shirt, toots.

I know this may be bringing religion into it, but I would see sex as a sacred act between husband and wife. At the very least I think it should be reserved for people who love/care about each other an awful lot. I think that it must be so much better when there is a loving relationship involved rather than when it's just a one night stand etc. I wouldn't be able to deal with a polyamourous relationship though others seam to be able to because they see it as just sex, whereas I connect it with emotions.

(Obviously not everyone sees it that way but just thought I'd give my opinion. I may not agree with some people's lifestyle, but I don't think it's any of my business, and I like to live and let live.)

How interesting threads were posted while I was away.
Let me dig out from my ethology studies some points of interest.

There are 3 major models implemented regarding sexuality.
1) The alpha male coordinates sexual activities: in this case there is a high rate of infanticide, the alpha has to stay where the females are, genetic problems can show in higher rate than in other models. Some of the males might be castrated to disable them as potential alpha males.
2) high promiscuity, nobody can tell who is the father of any of the infants. Leads strong bisexuality among females and matriarchal rule. It is important for all the males to stay with the females when the reproducing is done.
3) Females choose mate for life. This results in low infanticide; the males are not nailed down to the place where they live, they can go together to hunting trips, etc... This is the best environment for teamwork.

As far as I know the 3rd model gives the most opportunity to the formation of highly evolved and structured community like human communities. In this model females have to be very faithful, males have to be a little faithful. The more promiscuous the females are the more faithful the more faithful the males have to be in order to maintain the model. If multiple marriage is allowed for men females will be closed from social connections. If males are restricted by society from being polyamourous, females will have a bit more freedom. If you want freedom for your daughter, work on enforcing more strict male faithfulness.