Monogamy

[Nosuportneeded]

This is just my point -words are just words, it's understanding and agreeing on what each partner can and can't do in a relationship. Not what a outsider thinks should be the definition of whatever.

It's a fair point, but I think she just wants opinions about the word itself, and how it defines relationship behavior

 

[Nosuportneeded]

Monogamy, to me, is being in a relationship with one person while also being sexually committed to that one person.

So what about a third, as a "sex toy" so to speak?

 

[1101550]

So what about a third, as a "sex toy" so to speak?

Hard for me to form an opinion on that as I nor my partner have ever found the idea of threesomes appealing.

I guess I'm rather vanilla or becoming more conservative as I get older. To me, a committed couple that actively has sex with people outside of their relationship is in the territory of "open relationship".

Just an opinion, of course.

 

[Nosuportneeded]

Hard for me to form an opinion on that as I nor my partner have ever found the idea of threesomes appealing.

I guess I'm rather vanilla or becoming more conservative as I get older. To me, a committed couple that actively has sex with people outside of their relationship is in the territory of "open relationship".

Just an opinion, of course.

Yes, I think it can be a stretch to call that monogamy. They are people and sex is usually a qualifier of extramarital or extracurricular relations

 

[328982]

So what about a third, as a "sex toy" so to speak?

I think there is an element of dehumanising the third party in these threesomes - they become a "sex toy" or "merely an object" - in order to serve and protect the relationship. Using someone for your sexual kicks in that way smacks a bit of narcissism and personally doesn't appeal to me. But each to their own.

 

[Coronahead]

Yeah I think it's degrading to be called a sex toy ... They are a person with feelings and sex is naturally very intimate, so something like the term FWB would be a better.

 

[Nosuportneeded]

I think there is an element of dehumanising the third party in these threesomes - they become a "sex toy" or "merely an object" - in order to serve and protect the relationship. Using someone for your sexual kicks in that way smacks a bit of narcissism and personally doesn't appeal to me. But each to their own.

Yeah I think it's degrading to be called a sex toy ... They are a person with feelings and sex is naturally very intimate, so something like the term FWB would be a better.

I understand what you guys mean, and I had the same gut reaction. If it sounds degrading, well it might be.

I'm sure op meant it in the least offensive way. As in, an addition for non-serious, playtime. Hopefully the third is not serious and in it for the fun as well. I like to be a sex toy, myself, but only because I've never truly felt objectified or degraded.

 

[Nosuportneeded]

I think there is an element of dehumanising the third party in these threesomes - they become a "sex toy" or "merely an object" - in order to serve and protect the relationship. Using someone for your sexual kicks in that way smacks a bit of narcissism and personally doesn't appeal to me. But each to their own.

Yeah I think it's degrading to be called a sex toy ... They are a person with feelings and sex is naturally very intimate, so something like the term FWB would be a better.

I understand what you guys mean, and I had the same gut reaction. If it sounds degrading, well it might be.

I'm sure op meant it in the least offensive way. As in, an addition for non-serious, playtime. Hopefully the third is not serious and in it for the fun as well. I like to be a sex toy, myself, but only because I've never truly felt objectified or degraded.

 

[Nosuportneeded]

I think there is an element of dehumanising the third party in these threesomes - they become a "sex toy" or "merely an object" - in order to serve and protect the relationship. Using someone for your sexual kicks in that way smacks a bit of narcissism and personally doesn't appeal to me. But each to their own.

Yeah I think it's degrading to be called a sex toy ... They are a person with feelings and sex is naturally very intimate, so something like the term FWB would be a better.

I understand what you guys mean, and I had the same gut reaction. If it sounds degrading, well it might be.

I'm sure op meant it in the least offensive way. As in, an addition for non-serious, playtime. Hopefully the third is not serious and in it for the fun as well. I like to be a sex toy, myself, but only because I've never truly felt objectified or degraded.

 

[Nosuportneeded]

I think there is an element of dehumanising the third party in these threesomes - they become a "sex toy" or "merely an object" - in order to serve and protect the relationship. Using someone for your sexual kicks in that way smacks a bit of narcissism and personally doesn't appeal to me. But each to their own.

Yeah I think it's degrading to be called a sex toy ... They are a person with feelings and sex is naturally very intimate, so something like the term FWB would be a better.

I understand what you guys mean, and I had the same gut reaction. If it sounds degrading, well it might be.

I'm sure op meant it in the least offensive way. As in, an addition for non-serious, playtime. Hopefully the third is not serious and in it for the fun as well. I like to be a sex toy, myself, but only because I've never truly felt objectified or degraded.

 

[nailz]

I think there is an element of dehumanising the third party in these threesomes - they become a "sex toy" or "merely an object" - in order to serve and protect the relationship. Using someone for your sexual kicks in that way smacks a bit of narcissism and personally doesn't appeal to me. But each to their own.

Dehumanizing? Narcissism?

Not setting boundaries and rules regarding interactions with the people you swing with is a surefire way to ruin your relationship

 

[328982]

Not setting boundaries and rules regarding interactions with the people you swing with is a surefire way to ruin your relationship

That's the point really: there's a risk to your relationship in the interaction so the third party is reduced to "merely an object" and "sex toy" - less than fully human. A sort of flesh-and-blood sex aid, serving your needs as a couple. Personally I wouldn't want to be cast in that role so probably wouldn't be comfortable using someone in that way. Just my opinion.

 

[nailz]

That's the point really: there's a risk to your relationship in the interaction so the third party is reduced to "merely an object" and "sex toy" - less than fully human. A sort of flesh-and-blood sex aid, serving your needs as a couple. Personally I wouldn't want to be cast in that role so probably wouldn't be comfortable using someone in that way. Just my opinion.

If you go into threesomes seeking a deeper bond beyond the physical then you are setting yourself up for drama.
That's if you can even find a couple willing to indulge you in it. Most know better.

A sort of flesh-and-blood sex aid, serving your needs as a couple.

You make it sound so one-sided, like slavery
I'm sure they get something out of it as well

 

[soren10]

What is being discussed in this thread is complicated enough to have a simple answer and have said answer be the " correct " one. many things come in play to be monogamous or invite others to the bedroom, in all parties involved that is. Also many different pathways have the same destination.

 

[LilJock]

Strictly speaking, monogamy means having one partner. So how do three-ways fit into this definition? Can couples have three-ways and still be monogamous? I suppose the answer lies in "how significant" the other member is to them, and what they deem to constitute infidelity.

If the third party is, as suggested, not significant, that could be construed as meaning the partners still have only one partner or, rather, one significant partner, and are, therefore, still monogamous. Many birds are considered monogamous, but DNA tests on offspring show that this is not 100% so, that there's often a little fooling on going on, but the couples still maintain stable relationships and are, therefore, be considered monogamous.

In the case of birds, the male bird is unaware his partner has cheated, just as his female partner is unaware of his secret philandering with another female. This can work for birds and some very trusting humans, but is often complicated in humans by gossiping friends or private detectives. In this case, we look to what they consider constitutes infidelity (cheating). If the couple agrees to strict monogamy (faithfulness), then any transgression is verboten. If they make some other agreement, like three-ways, then that's okay. In other words, infidelity consists of any violation of agreed-upon terms. Everything within those terms is acceptable, even though these might be considered outside the bounds by other couples.

By this reasoning, three-ways would be considered "monogamous" as long as this is agreed upon by the couple and any third party is "insignificant" to their relationship. However, this does not always mean it's wise. Regardless of agreements, human emotions are not always so straightforward or predictable as to be corralled within artificial boundaries and those insignificant third parties can turn out to be all too significant.

 

[sizehungry]

For me , it's a mutually exclusive deal . She becomes not only my sexual partner , but my partner in every respect , my trusted confidant , keeper of my secrets , perhaps , mother of my children , and the one I would give my life to protect , but that's just my scenario . It is not for me to pass judgement on the way others conduct their relationships , all I hope for is that are they happy . We all indulge in it from time to time , but judgementalism really is bullshit for the most part .

 

[deleted817718]

This topic comes up now and then and it seems that different people have totally different concepts of monogamy. Some people define monogamy strictly based on sex, some by fidelity, some by marriage.

I consider myself in a monogamous relationship. I'm totally faithful and loyal to my boyfriend and would never even consider doing something behind his back.
But we do have threesomes from time to time. They're always together as a couple, and the third person is just there as a sex toy. There's never any deeper bond or feelings, it's just a shared kink

By some people's definition of monogamy that automatically disqualifies me from saying I'm in a "monogamous relationship"

My concept of monogamy is based on fidelity (which is in turn based on loyalty, trust and honesty), so I've always believed that even someone like a prostitute or a porn star could still be in a monogamous relationship if they were devoted to their partner.
But maybe my concept of monogamy is twisted?
What does monogamy mean to you?

My wife and I consider your marriage monotonous, and I have never had any sexual contact with anyone but my wife since we first got together. But throughout our relationship my wife has had sexual encounters and relationships with other men. These have always been with my prior knowledge and she is always open about what she is doing and who she is doing it with.
So if your idea of monogamy is twisted, so is ours!

 

[sodominsane]

That's the point really: there's a risk to your relationship in the interaction so the third party is reduced to "merely an object" and "sex toy" - less than fully human. A sort of flesh-and-blood sex aid, serving your needs as a couple. Personally I wouldn't want to be cast in that role so probably wouldn't be comfortable using someone in that way. Just my opinion.

I'd be ok with it....im just not that sensitive

 

[Auggiecakes]

This topic comes up now and then and it seems that different people have totally different concepts of monogamy. Some people define monogamy strictly based on sex, some by fidelity, some by marriage.

I consider myself in a monogamous relationship. I'm totally faithful and loyal to my boyfriend and would never even consider doing something behind his back.
But we do have threesomes from time to time. They're always together as a couple, and the third person is just there as a sex toy. There's never any deeper bond or feelings, it's just a shared kink

By some people's definition of monogamy that automatically disqualifies me from saying I'm in a "monogamous relationship"

My concept of monogamy is based on fidelity (which is in turn based on loyalty, trust and honesty), so I've always believed that even someone like a prostitute or a porn star could still be in a monogamous relationship if they were devoted to their partner.
But maybe my concept of monogamy is twisted?
What does monogamy mean to you?

If you wouldn’t do it in front of your Partner then you aren’t being faithful or monogamous. People know about physically cheating but you can also do it emotionally too.

 

[GorillaHorse]

I think trying to draw straight lines on curved bodies is an exercise in futility, but continue onward.

Monogamy is defined by the dictionary. It has to do with marriage and sex. It is a boring word with little to work with.

I prefer to focus on love. Is love for one person and one person only monogamy? No. Not by definition. Is it insanity? Sure sounds like it to me.

Monogamy was useful before birth control. Now it is a construct to simplify life. Go ahead and use it as you will.

It sounds like you want to do what you want with your body and divide it from what you do with your mind. Good luck keeping that up.

By my definition, your relationship is not monogamous. But, then again, who cares?