As part of the Alternative Lifestyles blog-posts migration over to the new blog The Professor’s Lifestyles Memoirs, this post has been moved there. To read this post please click the link to the blog.
Your patience is appreciated. Thank you!
The Professor's Convatorium
Welcome โ Come Immerse, Convalesce, Spark Dialogue or Simply Discern
The Professor's Convatorium 
Pingback: Introduction: Harmful or Helpful? | Professor Taboo
OK, I’m not sure I get it. So like orgies, and getting your grove on with more than one person. You consider them “soul mates”, but Professor — the “meaningful” relationships — the connections, rarely last for any significant time, right? Will they be there for you when you are dying of a terminal illness? Will these “soul mates” clean up your feces and urine and bring you chicken soup and make sure you have clean linen on your bed?
LikeLike
You consider them โsoul matesโ…not exactly. Some will be, others have the potential to be, and still others may never be Soul Mates. When we have soul mates around us, that is a VERY fortunate, VERY wonderful powerful connection. Why limit oneself to only one type of Soul Mate for an entire lifetime? To me/us in the lifestyles, that greatly limits one’s potential to love more and love better, AND to be loved more and be loved better for several reasons. Also, my definition of Soul Mate may not be exactly like yours or someone else’s definition. The four or five women I consider to be soul mates probably have a different variation than mine, but I’m 90% sure that if you asked them their definition, compared to my definiton, the two wouldn’t be completely opposing in every way.
…the โmeaningfulโ relationships โ the connections, rarely last for any significant time, right? That’s not completely true if they are capable of that deep, that loyal, that expansive, that attentive level of love. Granted, most people can only love intensely and thoroughly perhaps no more than 2, 3, 5, maybe 6 men and women; but strictly 1 person for an average 60-80 years(?), non-sense! ๐ I’ve written a few other posts about this subject & the lifestyle — e.g. Dare to Love…More, Soul MateS, and “The One” Myth, to name three — but my main point/question is this: Why do we keep telling ourselves and others ‘You can only do this much, then you must stop and quit; there’s nothing more you can learn or grow from/with.‘? For the longest time everyone said mankind can never walk on the Moon! What if we still believed that today? Is the extent of “love” really so finite, so strictly defined in one little box? Personally, I think not. The biggest reason why I feel it’s not is because EVERYTHING in this existence & on this planet, and seemingly in this Cosmos…are constantly changing, evolving, expanding, contracting, in never-ending movement. Is not love sort of the same “fluidity” for different people…7.3+ billion people?
For your remaining questions, yes, yes, yes, and yes…if we/they are capable given our/their own situations and physical locations. Of those previously mentioned 4-5 female Soul Mates mentioned earlier, only 2 live within a 10-40 mile radius. One male Soul Mate lives about 40-miles away; the rest live out of the state. ๐ As we’ve discussed many times in depth Victoria, this Red-Right conservative state IS NOT the most fertile land for someone like me to discover new “Alternative Lifers”, that’s for DARN SHOOTIN SURE!!! *spits out his brown chew & tips his 10-gallon cowboy hat to ya!* ๐
LikeLike
Thank for your reply. It’s late, and I will followup more tomorrow. I just wanted to agree with you that “soul mates” probably mean different things to different people. I don’t need to have sexual relations to have a deep and profound connection with another human being. But I think you apparently do. The reason I think this is the case is that you keep bringing up that we shouldn’t limited ourselves to just one person. I never do. It’s just that fucking isn’t generally included in that deep connection with others I’ve become “one” with. More tomorrow. Nighty night. ๐
LikeLike
Morning Victoria! ๐ Since you’re going to add more today, I’ll keep this response semi-short. HAH! I want to bring up two thoughts:
1) imagine your favorite Keish (in a round dish) sliced into 4 equal pieces, i.e. no one slice is more/less than the other three. I thought I’d never say this with you, but I feel you might be focusing too much on 3 pieces of Keish, while denying the fourth, OR focusing too much on one piece while denying the other three. Is it possible to focus EQUALLY (like four of your own children) on all four slices? In a general sense (i.e. not necessarily with you) I think a lot of folks get too hung-up or over-sensitized about the weight of sexual-physical intimacy. There’s an entire Keish available; all parts of it are delicious, but denying the whole, IMHO, denies the WHOLE human experience. Furthermore, every person has a different part of their own Keish-parts to add to the table-of-experience; i.e. the intimate experiences with one are NEVER exactly the same with others, so why limit your life experience inside one impermeable box? I have a gut feeling you & I will have to continue hashing this out until we both adequately understand each other’s POV. I certainly enjoy learning more about the neurological dynamics of human nature; your area of expertise. ๐
2) Did you have the chance to watch the entire movie? If not, the 1-hour 35-min film was 90%+ about the group dynamics and individual member’s roles & personal lifes, and only 10% (or less?) about actual nude sex between them. The heavily disproportionate breakdown (vs. the film’s title) was a very intriguing exploration as to why it was so out of whack!
Last point here: you said, “But I think you apparently do.” That’s quiet an audacious statement. LOL But I think I understand where you’re coming from. Because so much of traditional (conservative, puritan?) society — Southern American especially — spend SO MUCH energy demphasizing sex, that in the reciprocal their energy draws way too much sensitive attention to sex that it often back fires! Regarding me, when I see this hyper-sensitivity toward something so naturally a 1/4th (quarter) of a beautiful whole, which has 3 other equal parts, I keep trying to help the out-of-balance group rebalance. Yes, it could appear that my matching energy to rebalance gets misinterpreted as a sex-addict… which is the furtherest thing from the truth. And I will show this (once again) in my next post: Do You Have A Condom? Stay tuned! ๐
As always, thoroughly enjoy examining & exploring with you Victoria! Thank you! โค
LikeLike
Good morning Professor,
Thanks for your reply. Let me see if I can make this less complicated for you to grasp. I don’t mean that in a condescending way. You pretty much say I’m limiting myself, and I say it is you who are limiting. You need to have sex associated with that intimate connection. That means, you leave out all the other fucking (no pun intended) amazing people that you can’t have a connection with because you need to first be attracted to them physically, sexually.
Does that help you understand a little bit better? The most profound, deepest connections I’ve ever had with people didn’t involve genitalia.
Now — if you like having sex with multiple people and in the process you establish a connection, terrific. I simply don’t need to having a penis inside of me to establish that sort of connection.
Is that clear as mud? ๐
About the movie. No, I couldn’t find a free viewing. Basically, from what I gather, it’s a grown-ups version of The Breakfast Club with “benefits”. ๐
LikeLike
You pretty much say Iโm limiting myself, and I say it is you who are limiting.
Well my wonderful friend, I have to disagree with that summary. I don’t feel it is accurate, most definitely about me. ๐ Perhaps we just need more time to know each other better, perhaps learn each other’s words better and their context — i.e. the human experience behind them as opposed to their Webster’s Dictionary blandness. Also, when people don’t share live conversations & face-2-face experiences together in person building up a living history, that does sometimes limit full understanding. I know that sometimes I am not the best writer and will sometimes fail (miserably?) in conveying on paper my heart & thoughts. Sorry. ๐ฆ With that said, I am REALLY trying my best to discuss more than just one-quarter of the entire human experience between people, but without denying the importance of all four quarters; the whole! Does that make sense?
Why am I emphasizing 4-quarters? Because regarding sexual attraction or tension, I know the reality for me is this: When a physically stunning woman (to me) comes into my circle of awareness (as a stranger), as a healthy hetero man I most definitely will take notice of her exquisite physical beauty in my eyes. Nothing wrong with noting subjective credit where I find my subjective credit is due. At the same time that awareness/notice TRIGGERS a familiar warning: no one person possesses 100% of all human virtues AND 100% physical “perfection” (a relative term!) simultaneously. All of us have our counter-balancing flaws! I think Nature wisely does that to TRY and check & manage our insatiable human ego. Once again, gazing at that stunning stranger I’m gazing at only 1-quarter of a woman’s being without yet knowing anything about the other 3-quarters.
You need to have sex associated with that intimate connection.
No. Not completely correct. Sorry.
The word “need” is the wrong word. To describe myself so far in this context, I would say it this way: I am not opposed to sex being the first of four quarters experienced with another like-minded consenting woman/women. Why? Because one quarter is NOT anymore important than the other three. I am happy to start with any of the four parts; HELL, we can even draw Words out of a Hat where the four words inside are Mind, Heart, Spirit/Soul, and Body. Whatever we draw, is what we’ll both/all start exploring! It really makes me no difference. ๐
That means, you leave out all the other fucking (no pun intended) amazing people that you canโt have a connection with because you need to first be attracted to them physically, sexually.
As you can now imagine, this part is HORRIBLY off-base and flat out wrong. Sorry my delightful good friend. ๐ โค
I simply donโt need to have a penis inside of me to establish that sort of connection.
Wonderful. I don’t have anything significant or debateable to add to that. ๐
Is that clear as mud? ๐
Naw, I think it’s muddier… maybe even quicksand now! LOL ๐ ๐
About the movie. No, I couldnโt find a free viewing. Basically, from what I gather, itโs a grown-ups version of The Breakfast Club with โbenefitsโ. ๐
Nope, not really. Watch the entire movie. At the very least you’ll get all sorts of laughs! It’s worth the laughs for sure!
You might gain some more accurate assessments of me about this complex subject AFTER reading & pondering my next post in this series. Thank you Victoria for your patience with me! ๐
LikeLike
But you are hell bent on keeping it alive and well. ๐ So, if you found the perfect women with basically no physical flaws, and she really got you hard as a rock, and you had major sexual chemistry with her, would you be satisfied with that woman over the course of a lifetime, or would the Coolidge Effect take over?
Say you find 3 other women who meet your other criteria of a soul mate. Do you want to fuck them too?
LikeLike
Wow, I just CANNOT get you to let go of that “one” rope can I? This was the funny image/video that came to mind. LOL ๐ ๐
I’ve really, REALLY struggled with how best to respond to you & your comments. Why have I struggled? Because I care a lot about our friendship, I care a lot about your perspective & expertise, and I care a lot about who you are, what you’ve been through, and what you now represent. Therefore, it is CRITICAL for me to get this response as right as this imperfect man can possible get at this juncture in time. Then it hit me! ๐
For my reply here I’ll start a new thread far left for aesthetic and readibility benefits.
LikeLike
I probably don’t have much to add to this conversation as group sex or sex with multiple partners one after another in a string of “romances” isn’t my thing. I’m about as vanilla as they come, I suppose.
Here’s the thing: there is vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, rocky road, everything but the kitchen sink! There is no reason why it is wrong to prefer one over another. But that doesn’t mean the other flavors shouldn’t exist.
Having said that I see a dynamic unfolding here. I may be completely off base but I sense that your sexuality and sex-drive are important to you as a whole person. Thus your reference to quiche and parts and pies. Since that’s a part of you that you see as equally important to the other parts it is intertwined in such a way that it’s part of the package, so to speak. You aren’t particularly interested in finding one person who has the four parts to share yourself with. You seem to believe that no one person has all of those parts, or even if they did, you might not be satisfied with that for a lifetime. That is not meant as an insult. Just an observation. There are many people who feel that way. They make no attempt at being monogamous because it doesn’t feel natural to them.
It seems to me that you assume that everyone would be better off if they viewed the world in those terms. More love, more loving. Perhaps you think deep down everyone else feels the same way you do they just haven’t liberated themselves from their puritanical indoctrination?
At any rate I will completely and totally admit that I’m uncomfortable with your alternative lifestyles. That isn’t a judgement on you. I do value some of the parts of the quiche more than others. I don’t think that all the parts are equal. While I certainly don’t believe that my genitals are a “gift” to another person that is the part that is riskier, for me, to give and so I need to find out about the other parts before I can enjoy that part. But that’s just me.
LikeLike
I probably donโt have much to add to this conversation…
I respectfully disagree Ruth, and here’s why. As a father and teacher everyone’s POV, questions, answers (right or wrong), usually have SOMETHING valuable to offer! Silence is only rarely appropriate for a think-tank or classroom, when the exact words, context, inflection, emotion, etc, haven’t arrived at the speed-of-light for everyone to properly comprehend YOUR feedback/input. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean you have nothing to offer in the future! Everyone does. ๐ Btw, my general response (as a new thread) below, that starts with my Release Clause, might address some of your thoughts here…fyi.
I’m beginning to get the feeling that by not offering here the FULL 1-hour 35-min film “A Good Old Fashioned Orgy“, and just the preview-trailer, was not such a good idea. I was also trying to respect everyone’s valuable time.
Your “observations” Ruth in your 3rd paragraph are fair & very good! Thank you. With your 4th paragraph, here is MY subjective version. ๐
You said, “It seems to me that you assume that everyone would be better off if they viewed the world in those terms. More love, more loving.” No, I would never say — and TRY to not imply — that everyone would be better off living my lifestyles. I WOULD say that before drawing final conclusions about how I and fellow lifestylers live & believe, one really doesn’t know unless they’ve tried those other flavors… once, twice, maybe three times for best measure. Now, innocent questions are FANTASTIC starters toward more comfort in unchartered waters — e.g. of course, learn how to sail, rig a boat, reading the weather & waves, etc, etc, before getting out into the ocean. Other veteran sailors have MUCH to offer! I’m sure you & everyone understand this analogy. ๐ But may I offer humbly one little tip please?
When inside a foreign country, it is best to learn their language and culture so that your questions & actions do not accidentally insult and RUIN your potentially extraordinary trip and experience…AND give them a sour taste for you and your culture. ๐
Your last paragraph Ruth is politely written — thank you. I want to explore (correct?) this statement: “I donโt think that all the parts [of the quiche] are equal.”
I realized I’ve once again NOT conveyed accurately what my mind, heart, and soul understand. My apologies! Here’s a much better description…
When I used the word FLUID above in another comment-reply, what that meant is that the Universe’s Law of Impermanence also applies to humans: our four parts of the Quiche are in constant fluid change, adapting, and sometimes(?)/often(?) it is very beneficial to get several other perspectives and new or refined skills in order to discover more memorable, meaningful, earth-shattering(?) life experiences…BECAUSE there are times when one or two parts of the Quiche are drained or draining, or are excessively overflowing, but perfect perpetual homeostasis is usually unachievable because we all exist within a moving, changing, adapting, evolving world where its homeo-sapiens are the same in many ways! LOL
For me personally, asking or expecting one person to maintain a foggy-sense of homeostasis is a LOT (too much?) to ask or expect! Now flip that, I have learned in SO MANY painful hard ways that I am sometimes unable to be that demi-god for one woman. I NEED HELP and will continue to require it from other trusted men and women! HAH! Is that ever true. ๐ฎ
I’m stopping here because this has already gotten pretty lengthy.
๐
LikeLike
When inside a foreign country, it is best to learn their language and culture so that your questions & actions do not accidentally insult and RUIN your potentially extraordinary trip and experienceโฆAND give them a sour taste for you and your culture. ๐
May I ask what specifically you are referring to here? Did I say something wrong or use the wrong language?
When I used the word FLUID above in another comment-reply, what that meant is that the Universeโs Law of Impermanence also applies to humans: our four parts of the Quiche are in constant fluid change, adapting, and sometimes(?)/often(?) it is very beneficial to get several other perspectives and new or refined skills in order to discover more memorable, meaningful, earth-shattering(?) life experiencesโฆBECAUSE there are times when one or two parts of the Quiche are drained or draining, or are excessively overflowing, but perfect perpetual homeostasis is usually unachievable because we all exist within a moving, changing, adapting, evolving world where its homeo-sapiens are the same in many ways!
Absolutely we are all in perpetual state of change. I’ve been married to my partner for three years and we both have changed immensely in that amount of time. That’s part of what makes me happy with one partner. Yes, there are parts of each of us that get drained and others that are overflowing. It’s learning to live and interact with each other in those ebbs and flows that keeps our monogamy exciting. I would think that perpetual homeostasis would be beyond boring. As you said, though, that is unachievable and I’m not even certain it’s desirable.
I have learned in SO MANY painful hard ways that I am sometimes unable to be that demi-god for one woman. I NEED HELP and will continue to require it from other trusted men and women!
I have, too, learned that I am never able to be a demi-goddess for my husband. I tried. It ended badly. I don’t want to carry that kind of weight and neither does my spouse. We both know what we need from each other and monogamy is at the top of the list. Other people desire an open marriage and that is their choice. Of course we need other people in our lives. Just not sexually.
LikeLike
May I ask what specifically you are referring to here? Did I say something wrong or use the wrong language?
My answer: “Btw, my general response (as a new thread) below, that starts with my Release Clause, might address some of your thoughts hereโฆfyi.” ๐
For the sake of time, I’m speaking to a GENERAL generic audience who might be visiting this post & comments-conversations now or later, but at the same time risking these replies (which by WordPress protocol are under your specific comments) coming across as if I’m directing my sniper-scope at you or Victoria — At the moment, I see only two choices to avoid the unintended defensiveness: 1) have these important & appreciated comments/questions Anonymous (somehow?) or 2) start a NEW post, in which my limited free-time doesn’t allow me to construct one or two posts per day, as well as follow MANY tangents or winding rabbit-trails. LOL See my dilemma? ๐ The analogy was intended this way: For ANY and ALL tourist who visit the foreign land of the Alternative Lifestyles or come in contact with its Natives, handle with kid gloves and it’s highly advisable to learn & speak their language, just as it is recommended for them to do the same in your land. ๐
The remainder of your paragraphs I think reflect the two of us saying the same thing or similar things! Wooohoooo! LOL ๐
I’ll close this reply with an anecdote…meant for a general audience…on a new thread below. Thank you SO MUCH Ruth for your participaton here & patience with me!!! ๐ โค
LikeLike
What Ruth said. ๐
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL…got it. I’m now about to formulate my specific response to her. Thank you Victoria. *chuckles* โค
LikeLike
For Victoria, Ruth, and others…
Release Clause — this is mostly generic public babbling, not necessarily directed at any one person. Thank you. ๐
My Alternative Lifestyles isn’t about me. It is only to the extent that I am one person in the whole equation/group/lifestyle, BUT it can appear as if my sexual drive is what it is all about & by me keeping the discussion-education doors OPEN…but also by default BECAUSE — and hear this well; chew on it a bit — one minor part of our/my lifestyles versus the “traditional” monogamous world IS sexual freedom/liberation. Yet, unnecessarily the sex-part gets pushed to the forefront maybe because the traditional monogamous world overly harps on the risks of better sex as if alternative methods are predestined, foregone conclusions to failure. They often overburden that ONE subject/aspect with too much sensitivity & fear — understandably because of important 21st century medical evolution YES, but IMHO also because conservatives & hyper-conservatives go to great lengths to setup their speculative scenarios of alternative lifestyles for “designed failure.” And the one silver bullet they OFTEN use in a variety of ways is human depravity or derivatives of human depravity. I hope I’m making sense? ๐
Another Ah-hah moment for me on this was a lengthy education & discussion about the similarities & differences between compassion and/versus compersion with other fellow lifestlyers! You are familiar with compassion and what it means & how it is manifested. You and others may not be familiar though with COMPERSION.
Compersion — 1) the feeling of joy/pleasure one has experiencing another’s joy/pleasure, such as in witnessing a toddler’s joy and feeling joy in response. 2) The feeling of joy associated with seeing a loved one love another; contrasted to jealousy. This includes ALL acts of engagement with others, not just one.
Therefore Victoria, I politely need to redirect & reword this/your assessment: “But you are hell bent on keeping it [as in free sex?] alive and well.” No, I am “hell bent” on keeping (and defending?) the taboo subject of deeper, meaningful, bonding, expansive potentials of human experience & engagement OPEN or from being squelched or chained down under a false ceiling that is reminiscent of total human depravity or the oppression of messy human ingenuity & evolutionary victories. There are levels of inherent risk in everything, in all of life and its VERY unknown scary future! Every once in awhile (IMHO) it is good to ask ourselves, Does this crossroads of which I’ve arrived need to be experienced as a Fear-of-Failure, or an Opportunity of Rewards? Please take that question & and this response as generic public babbling and not as any cattle-prodding or rude knife-throwing. ๐
As I mentioned above, my overall intent is to educate, examine, and promote further awareness of wider, fuller, responsible(!), dignifying, stimulating — for some liberating(?) — human engagement & experience BEYOND monism. โค ๐
LikeLike
“But you are hell bent on keeping it [as in free sex?] alive and well.โ
No, that’s not what I meant. My point was the irony of your comment about ego and nature finding a way to keep us humble. You found a way around that, was my point. ๐
But I do agree with what Ruth said — there are people who can’t be satisfied with just one person, even if he or she met all their “needs and wants” as a partner. I have never expected a partner to meet all my needs and wants — well — maybe when I was very young and naive, but that was short-lived.
I understand your desire to educate. Just remember, though, it comes across in a negative way when you use terms like “vanilla” as though we are boring and such.
LikeLike
Further clarification is always a great thing Ma’am. Thank you. ๐
Regarding the rest of this reply, I think I might have further/better addressed our POV’s and accurate, as well as inaccurate, interpretations of each other’s words, etc. Again, repeated clarifications are usually ALWAYS a great thing, especially when everyone concerned has such wonderful patience & multiple ways to express their ideas, etc.! Indeed, use of terms & framing of ideas to convey them is an Art learned & mastering, not inherent and final. ๐ โค
Nevertheless, I'll just ask this question in general (again)…
Why accept or tell others, that humans are only capable of exactly “this much” and not anymore? How is that enclosure proven to be always true?
LikeLike
Professor, what is “this much”? It takes hard work for people to make life-long commitments — who stick together through thick and thin. Now, I’m not talking about marriages where there is abuse or couples simply are not compatible.
In the beginning, nature tricks us into thinking we are compatible. Now, the older you are, the greater likelihood you will be more oriented towards compatibility rather than hormones/neurotransmitters. When we are young and our hormones are at their height, sometimes (most often) nature chooses our mates. It’s why most second marriages tend to last longer than first marriages because we are generally not as driven by those biological urges.
I support you 100% in your lifestyle and always have. I think I have proven this on V-chat by sharing educational research about your BDSM lifestyle and your desire to have more than one sexual receptive woman in your life. It apparently meets your needs and wants, at least for the time being. There are certainly pros and cons just like in monogamous relationships.
When couples, for example, are educated about the Coolidge Effect, then it helps people find tools around that if they really want to build a life together.There is something exceptionally beautiful about a couple who’ve stayed together through the hard times. I’ve seen this in my parents (mom and step-dad) married well over 40 years.They are more in love today than they were when they first married.
Now, as I understand it — you need multiple sexual partners to give you the same satisfaction and contentment on all 4 of your criteria as couples who can be satisfied and content with one and chose to grow old together, monogamously.
That’s not a condemnation towards your needs and wants. It is what it is. ๐
LikeLike
Professor, what is โthis muchโ?
That was saying, as if I were your parent, “Victoria, you cannot go beyond the front or backyards of our house because you will never have the skills, tools, or savvy discernment to cope with THAT WORLD outside!” Taking it back to the context I put it… some part of society in the past put(s) taboos & unfounded written/verbalized fears upon exploring, finding, & implementing a more EXPANSIVE, more profound human experience with others to a NARROW just one partner/soul mate. ๐ Does that help?
A thousand thank you’s for your support of me and my lifestyles! Truly!
There are certainly pros and cons just like in monogamous relationships.
Yes, but honestly, the only BIGGEST “con” is that we are too often treated (passively or directly) like those in the LGBT communities; to a lesser extent like NON-caucasians. The next minor “con” are when the novices/newbies are dealing with internal fears, insecurities, and hang-ups. But all of us have been there & gone through it also — making it a PLUS or very minor “con” in the big picture. Those are really the ONLY two “cons” in the lifestyles. ๐
On a relative sidenote, I really REALLY would like to move away from the constant mention of MY needs, MY sexual needs. I addressed that adequately with my similarities/contrasts of Compassion and/vs. Compersion. Thank you Victoria. ๐
Regarding the “hard work” of long-term or life-long couples/partners in monogamy… I’d be willing to bet a hefty sum, had they opened up their relationship/marriage to Alternative Lifestylers, it wouldn’t have been “so hard.” ๐ Why? Here’s ONE of many possible examples: Because just like you and Ruth did in calling me out about my sexist remark, more heads & more hearts are better than one. When I have multiple points of reference to reflect upon, those lenses make one FANTASTIC personal wide-lens or WIDE mirror to inspect! Sometimes ONE person can’t do that 100% of the time, maybe not even for each other’s entire life!
Your last statement: No worries; no condemnation taken. โค ๐
LikeLike
What Victoria said. ๐
LikeLike
LOL…you two TEAMMATES crack me up! ๐
LikeLike
For my generic (silent?) viewers and readers here. Please excuse any poor word-framing. I’m still a learning student. ๐
It isn’t arrogance nor total omniscience when speaking from actual personal experience. But experience has weight and credibility. One doesn’t fully know what one doesn’t know, unless it has been completely tried, and more than once the better. Theories certainly have their good place, yes, but they cannot hold a candle to “actual experiences” in a close-knit group, very similar to the analagous military-form “Band of Brothers” and why/how they become partners for life. ๐
My own alternative lifestyles choice is based PARTIALLY upon the general evidence & majority experiences of divorces from monogamy, MY two divorces included(!), but also based upon my personal POSITIVE experiences of my alternative lifestyles…which I am not YET a master at communicating to the general public their profound individual & group benefits. For that I apologize and offer three starter resources & links that do a better job:
Practical Polyamory — and…
Soul Mate or Life-Partner? — and then for the curious-sexually-charged…
Polyamorously Perverse
LikeLike
Professor, I’m going to comment down here, because I can no longer reply from that thread, and because you have this password protected, I can’t reply from my WP window. You wrote:
“Regarding the โhard workโ of long-term or life-long couples/partners in monogamyโฆ Iโd be willing to bet a hefty sum, had they opened up their relationship/marriage to Alternative Lifestylers, it wouldnโt have been โso hard.โ ๐ Why? Hereโs ONE of many possible examples: Because just like you and Ruth did in calling me out about my sexist remark, more heads & more hearts are better than one. When I have multiple points of reference to reflect upon, those lenses make one FANTASTIC personal wide-lens or WIDE mirror to inspect! Sometimes ONE person canโt do that 100% of the time, maybe not even for each otherโs entire life!”
Now see, Professor, this is where I really think you’re not understanding where I’m coming from. Yes, more heads (minds) and hearts (what ever you mean by that) are better than one, but my point is this: I only want one sex partner. I have zero desire to have multiple sex partners. But I have deep, satisfying connections with friends and loved ones who meet other criteria that I do not hop in bed with, and neither do I fantasize about us fucking each other. Can you see the difference here?
You apparently need multiple sex partners…so please don’t try to make this not about sex, because it is. ๐
LikeLike
Read. Noted. ๐
Thank you my wonderful friend for your lengthy patience & feedback. It is NOT unnoticed. โค
LikeLike
And thank you for the opportunity. I know that my posts can sometimes come across as snarky, but that’s because I suck at articulating my thoughts into words. You’ve talked to me enough times over this past year, and at length on the phone to know that’s generally not my style — being snarky, that is. ๐
๐ป
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mmmm, I still hold you in the highest esteem my Dear Friend. Always will. ๐
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m thinking that trying to make this not about sex is like trying to make going to the buffet not about eating. ๐ Sure, you enjoy the company, but you go for the food.
LikeLike
*snorts*
LikeLike
LOL! Hmmm, I’m not even sure I want to ask what that last sentence implies. ๐ ๐
LikeLike
There is no deeper meaning in what I wrote. It’s about the food, though that might not have been the best analogy given the topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, in that spirit, I certainly know from experience…there are 1-star buffet’s and then there are Platinum 5-star buffets because the specific food choices come from the most EXQUISITELY “experienced” finest “food groups” on the entire planet!!! ๐ ๐ *chuckles*
LikeLike
I don’t have an issue with the topic but I do have an issue with the vid. I tried twice and couldn’t getbpast five mins. So for those of us who are not vid friendly, maybe an alternative way of describing it?
LikeLike
Are you able to search the movie via a nation-friendly search engine & watch the trialer (or entire film) that way? YouTube might be restricted in Spain? Maybe?
If not, here’s a couple of different trailer/preview links:
https://vimeo.com/74275276
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi918592537/
Let me know if those URL’s don’t work either. ๐
LikeLike
Sorry. I’m incapable of watching vids. I’m a reader not a watcher.
LikeLike
Oh! Okay, didn’t realize that. In that case, Wikipedia offers a good synopsis of the film here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Good_Old_Fashioned_Orgy#Plot
Does that work Ma’am? ๐
LikeLike
Roughseas,
In the end everyone has the orgy, i.e. all the men & women of the group have sex with each other out in the open in various parts of the house and outside the house in the backyard. The following day all of them are profoundly more close mentally, emotionally, spiritually(?), and physically than they ever could’ve been! All because they got past, way beyond the stereotypical hyper-sensitizing of sex, a very, VERY natural human phenomena when treated & viewed responsibly, openly, and with dignity & honor shown to all… especially when personal hangups are confronted & dealt with as they truly are: merely Oz behnd the curtain!
That’s the great part and my primary point here. ๐
LikeLike
That makes sense. In theory.
Two totally separate points. I am loving the ma’am. Stop appealing to my inner Leonora!
Your teammates comment. At one point, I forget where, we were a trio. And then there were four when Violet was added. Atheist women, you got to love them/us, we are so nice. Must off to tell some fundie woman how rude and abusive she is ๐
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…makes sense. In theory.”
You couldn’t be more right. Due to the human brain, the heart’s & body’s emotions, and the dominance of fear-of-the-unknown that conservative society imposes regarding sexual activities outside monogamy… yes, that level of sexual openness is quite unpredictable for first-timers, even 2nd-timers, and then the “unknown” is always ready to rear its head when a Newbie is introduced into the mix/group. Therefore, the oft ill-conceived notion that the open/swinger/polyamorous lifestyles are a perpetual “free-for-all” sex buffet is absolutely ficticious! ๐ The personality dynamics & backgrounds of everyone are just too diverse for the chemistry to work perfectly everytime. BUT…that is what I really enjoy is the challenge & excitement of an unknown or slight unknown! I find it thrilling in those rare occurences — ugh, especially living in the bible-belt where the majority of people are prudish about such things — when there’s a group of like-minded “free spirited” people together who are not shy about something so naturally & humanly beautiful. Sadly, a smooth fun group dynamic happens less than outsiders realize; at least here in Texas.
At one point, I forget where, we were a trio. And then there were four when Violet was added. Atheist women, you got to love them/us, we are so nice.
Am I reading that correctly? You Roughseas, have been involved in a trio then a foursome? ๐ฎ If so, I want to know more! Ah, yes. I almost ALWAYS endear atheist, agnostics, humanists (of course!), or anyone NOT ultra-religious! The topics of engagement with them are usually endless!!!
Must off to tell some fundie woman how rude and abusive she is
Oh dear. Poor poor woman. Be gentle Ma’am. ๐ ๐
LikeLike
I am so very late to this. There has been a lot said already, so I’ll just say a little.
I am not turned off by alternative lifestyles or even the idea of group sex. In fact, for the reality of an orgy to work in my mind, I think I would have to be close friends with those involved. I don’t think I could get past the room full of strangers. Though maybe I could with some pharmaceutical help. ๐ However, I’m not in any social circles where my close friends would even consider such a thing. (That I know of.)
As has been said, it works in theory. I think it could work in practice. The problem is finding the right group and making sure that the experience goes well throughout. That’s a hard order to fill.
LikeLike
Never late Madalyn. You always have something valuable to contribute no matter the timing! ๐
…for the reality of an orgy to work in my mind, I think I would have to be close friends with those involved.
You hit the nail on the head: “close friends.” Which begs the question and all of its subsequent questions based on those answers… HOW do you become TRULY close friends at that comfort level? Many are too fearful and/or too lazy to commit to achieving that soulful, intimate closeness which takes quality time, quantitative time, openness, levels of vulnerability, patience, forgiveness (without becoming a floor-mat), and most of all concise articulate communication skills (via first-hand experience) both speaking and listening. And just as important, it takes brutal honesty with self!
HAH! What’s NOT to like about all of that!? ๐ LOL
…it works in theory. I think it could work in practice. The problem is finding the right group and making sure that the experience goes well throughout. Thatโs a hard order to fill.
If I may say with all honesty and respect Madalyn, it DOES work in practice — I humbly say that based on my first-hand experience. You are absolutely correct it requires the “like-minded” or OPEN-MINDED brave types for it to work best or have the potential. Over the years I’ve learned the right probing questions to ask, and what signals & words to look for and listen for in order to make wiser more successful personal approaches to the subject. And as many things in life… you must GET INTO THE GAME in order to become good at it or hope for being voted into the Hall of Fame. ๐ ๐ However, don’t be disillusioned that everything works superbly all the time. It doesn’t, BUT make each encounter at LEAST a learning experience, i.e. learn to fail better each time. ๐
A footnote — what many people fear when considering the lifestyles is disrespect and/or judgement/shaming, either by their partner or by the group. Your partner is your business ultimately. In the group, again, none of that has ANY place whatsoever in our lifestyles! Period. Not tolerated. Besides, if you bring that to the table…you’ll get ignored & pushed away REAL fast by the veterans. News (references/reviews) travels fast in very intimate circles if it’s deserved. Fyi. Accountability is highly valued in our lifestyles. And honestly, those types of codes of conduct are too lofty (alien?) for certain character types. Am I right? There will always be bad apples in every society. You can’t always avoid them, in any sort of setting!
Thank you so much Madalyn for your feedback! Feel free to share more. โค
LikeLike