What open marriage taught one man about feminism

[AlteredEgo]

You've never seen a human being where every physical characteristic was so "perfect" to the point where everything else was of little consequence to your raging libido?

No. I guess I'm just not wired that way. The sight of attractive people doesn't arouse me.

 

[firsttimecaller]

No. I guess I'm just not wired that way. The sight of attractive people doesn't arouse me.

That's...interesting. I mean, it's just so far from the way I'm wired that I have trouble comprehending

So, you could be aroused for sex with a 95 year old man if other aspects of him fit the bill?

 

[Symphonic]

"Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control."

This is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read. Ever.

How does one actually go through the "patriarchal" act of marriage and then decide that monogamy is oppression?

"... if she only likes sex with her husband or boyfriend, she’s boring and lame...."

Who has ever said this? Ever?

 

[firsttimecaller]

So, you could be aroused for sex with a 95 year old man if other aspects of him fit the bill?

This part isn't necessarily the case, as something lacking arousal capability does not necessarily negate capability for disgust.

Still, I've always kinda assumed that pretty much everyone essentially put people in one of 3 categories regarding looks: festering wound, a rock, a flower.

I.e. "ew", "eh", and "ooooooh"

Are you saying you see everyone as rocks or wounds?

 

[693987]

You've never seen a human being where every physical characteristic was so "perfect" to the point where everything else was of little consequence to your raging libido?

I realize this was to AE, but I'm going to chime in too.

No. It could be one of the more gorgeous people on the planet, but that won't make me disloyal. Even if I were single, my days have long passed of just wanting to fuck someone because they're pretty/handsome/sexy. I have to actually like them. I don't have to love them, but I have to genuinely like them. I have to find them attractive too, but I have a pretty broad definition of attractive.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

possessiveness is synonymous with jealousy. Do you understand it now?

I do understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. Possessiveness is not synonymous with jealousy. You are not trying to control what someone else do by being feeling jealous.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

An open marriage does not mean you aren't loyal. I've carried on multiple relationships while married but I came home to the same man every night. That man is still the person I come home to long after those other relationships failed.

 

[AlteredEgo]

That's...interesting. I mean, it's just so far from the way I'm wired that I have trouble comprehending

So, you could be aroused for sex with a 95 year old man if other aspects of him fit the bill?

Probably not. You're conflating completely separate concepts. The sight of attractive people is oleasing, but not arousing to me. It's a reason to become familiar with someone, not a reason to fuck them all on its own. Being visually appealing is just one facet of attraction, for me.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I do understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. Possessiveness is not synonymous with jealousy. You are not trying to control what someone else do by being feeling jealous.

You might need a new dictionary.

1. mental uneasiness from suspicion or fearof rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., as in love oraims.
2. vigilance in maintaining or guarding omething

Please know this, the errors above have to do with some malfunctions within my phone which needs replacement. It does not appear that way on dictionary.com, where those are actually the second and third definitions for jealousy.

 

[185248]

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

A link. is that it? When does a link become a totally personal opinion? When an internet link, the internet itself controls thought. Did not even view it, cause I expect someone who posts an individual header to follow up with a personal thought.

I usually do it for music vids, or some other thing which does not need personal view. Did not read past the original post. You may have posted your personal opinion after, and not before a L*INK

 

[Symphonic]

An open marriage does not mean you aren't loyal. I've carried on multiple relationships while married but I came home to the same man every night. That man is still the person I come home to long after those other relationships failed.

And what would happen if those relationships hadn't failed exactly? Or worse what if your relationship with the person you married failed due to one of the extramarital ones?

 

[AlteredEgo]

And what would happen if those relationships hadn't failed exactly? Or worse what if your relationship with the person you married failed due to one of the extramarital ones?

You think you're making a point, but you are not. What if her marriage failed anyway for reasons completely discrete/divorced from any extra-marital relationships, or none existed?

For the record, almost none of my extra relationships failed. One became obsessive, possessive and stalked me a little. One just turned out to be a giant asshole once the sexual aspect of things had to end. But other than that, all have remained friendly. The relationships didn't fail; they changed. I wanted to go back to being monogamous. My marriage didn't fail because of any outide activities. It failed because my husband wasn't sexually attracted to women.

Some of my extra relationships remained strong and intensely sexual for a number of years. If I had not gone back to monogamy, I suppose I would have just kept fucking them or Wed have eventually drifted apart. I loved some if them, sure, but I always went home to my husband, and was not tempted to leave him behind.

 

[chrysler fanatic]

Gee whiz. That was one of the most depressing things I have ever read.
The idea of my wife or I being different people unto ourselves is totally alien to me.

 

[Symphonic]

You think you're making a point, but you are not. What if her marriage failed anyway for reasons completely discrete/divorced from any extra-marital relationships, or none existed?

I asked because she gave basis of her definition of loyalty which seems contingent on her lover's not being better suited for her than her husband.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I asked because she gave basis of her definition of loyalty which seems contingent on her lover's not being better suited for her than her husband.

I did not interpret her response the same way.

 

[Symphonic]

I did not interpret her response the same way.

I noticed. That's why I clarified my reasoning for asking.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

I wasn't looking for someone to replace my husband. We dabbled in polyamory. No relationship could come close to what he and I have. The other relationships were merely adventures and misadventures.

 

[Heat]

I think the article is a fantasy life some guy made up. There might be some agreed-upon infidelity in their relationship, but the "...crawls into bed in the middle of the night and tells me she and Paolo had sex" is, in my opinion, written from a would-be cuckholded husband's fantasy life.

 

[firsttimecaller]

Probably not. You're conflating completely separate concepts.

Yeah apologies. I realized the mistake and clarified here: https://www.lpsg.com/threads/what-o...man-about-feminism.462680/page-3#post-6283915

 

[TexanStar]

I think the article is a fantasy life some guy made up. There might be some agreed-upon infidelity in their relationship, but the "...crawls into bed in the middle of the night and tells me she and Paolo had sex" is, in my opinion, written from a would-be cuckholded husband's fantasy life.