Saturday, October 9, 2010

Stamina.

I'm starting to believe that Rowdy is poly not just because of personal convictions, emotional makeup, or sexual proclivities, but because getting him off is literally shift work.




EDIT: I feel sort of obligated to add, for people who aren't familiar with the whole poly thing, that it's not another word for "unlimited three-way sex." There's actually a lot of two-way sex, and even more three-way dinners and naps and walks and museum visits and other such wild sexy adventures. Rowdy may have sex with two chicks, dudebro, but he also visited Times Square and saw the Statue of Liberty and discussed the role of Jesuits in the Catholic Church with two chicks, dudebro. Do dudebros care about that sort of thing?

I think their lives would be a whole lot richer and more beautiful--and more likely to involve two chicks, for that matter--if they did.

16 comments:

  1. I think that makes you both chicks true polies. The thing is, most men are just natural about juggling two or more chicks, the problem in such arrangements lies in how the ladies concerned manage to handle each other's presence.
    And again, he would be read a true poly should he manage to go on a like trip with you and some other of your special friends. That is hout it slices, dudebro.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, in my experience, poly itself is a lot of work: for every partner you have, you ought to spend time getting to know them and learning to love them, and though SOME of this can be done with another partner present, there are other conversations that seem to demand face time. This effectively means that instead of dating two people simultaneously, you're dating two different people CONSECUTIVELY -- or maybe I'm just doing it wrong.

    I'm not knocking polyamory, it's wonderful and liberating -- but in my experience it comes with a price tag.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would disagree with the idea that most men can "just naturally balance two chicks". Plenty of guys out there aren't suited to polyamory, whether it's because they don't want two chicks at once, they like the idea of two chicks in theory but feel guilty or weird about it in practice, or they like the idea of two chicks but hate the idea of those chicks having other guys.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't even imagine why disapproval of chicks having other guys makes a man not suited for polyamory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I can't even imagine why disapproval of chicks having other guys makes a man not suited for polyamory."

    Hypocrisy?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Because being poly means having an agreement that both of you will see other people. Having an "agreement" that you'll see other people while your partner is with you and you alone is generally called "being a controlling, abusive asshole".

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would lay my bet that our nonymouse is not so much an advocate of polyamory as under the impression that humans are actually gorillas and "natural polyamory" means men control multiple women.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ...and discussed the role of Jesuits in the Catholic Church with two chicks, dudebro.

    In fairness, that's pretty hot, too.

    Having an "agreement" that you'll see other people while your partner is with you and you alone is generally called "being a controlling, abusive asshole".

    Strongest possible disagree. It may be that some, or even most mono/poly relationships involve some amount of "you should deal with your insecurities about sharing but I won't deal with mine". But assuming that all of them are like that is wildly unfair.

    I can consent to be in a mono relationship with a poly person just as freely and adult-ly as I can consent to be a submissive in a relationship. Maybe being the one who can't sleep around isn't my greatest preference. But maybe being the one who gets fucked in the ass after cleaning the bathroom isn't, either. If either of those is part of a relationship I decide I want, there needn't be any judgment about my partner's controlling-abusive-assholeness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Elmo: you'll notice I put quotes around the word "agreement" and said that such an arrangement is generally thought of as abusive/controlling/etc.

    I've known one couple where one person wanted to fuck other people and the other was like "Oh, you go ahead. I don't feel like following suit, though." I've known far more couples, however, where one party basically said "Either you let me fuck other people or I leave you" and the other person grudgingly consented. I think the latter is a hell of a lot more common than the former.

    The point I was getting at is that if anyone in the arrangement hates "sharing" their partner, it can't rightfully be called polyamory - and therefore Anonymous' assertions are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And the point I'm getting at is that polyamory is complicated. I say there's plenty of room for a consensual polyamorous relationship in which partner A sleeps around but hates "sharing" partner B, as long as partner B is cool with it.

    Just like with kink, this may sometimes be and sometimes not be an arrangement both partners are equally gung-ho about; I'm not sure that's for us to judge.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just to be clear, I don't care what two consenting adults choose to do, whether it seems fair to the rest of the world or not. I just wouldn't call a one-sided "open" relationship poly.

    The word "polyamory" means "many loves" - and doesn't specify that only one person in a relationship is allowed to have them. And all the websites and diatribes and how-tos I've read on opening up a relationship ask me to picture an idealized world where love is bountiful and nobody ever feels jealous. The idea of someone saying "I'm gonna fuck other people but if you do the same I'll freak out" doesn't seem to fit with this vibe. YMMV.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think that "I don't want to see anyone but you, but I'm happy for you if you see others" can be a totally legitimate sentiment and a valid relationship choice if it's made freely.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Given this branch of the comment thread started over the statement "I can't even imagine why disapproval of chicks having other guys makes a man not suited for polyamory." after "The thing is, most men are just natural about juggling two or more chicks, the problem in such arrangements lies in how the ladies concerned manage to handle each other's presence.", I don't think it's that the objection is to "I don't want to see anyone but you, but I'm happy for you if you see others" can be a totally legitimate sentiment and a valid relationship choice if it's made freely." rather than the rancid double standard.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @LabRat, yeaaaaah. I kinda didn't want to feed the troll so I didn't say anything but since we've already given him/her a nice meal anyway: there's nothing wrong with a relationship being as completely unequal as one wants provided all the partners are consenting. The issue is that the inequality shouldn't be based on the fact that one member of the relationship is a jealous, immature, squabbling, emotional "chick" and the other is a strong, mature, virile man.

    It seems incredibly obvious to me that that's what's off-putting about anonymous's statement. Let's not all pretend to be so dense as to not see that.

    --Andy

    ReplyDelete
  15. Let's all just agree that Anon is a douchebag, and go have a beer and talk about Mythbusters.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just to sum it up:
    If you make a generally wrong statement "guys out there aren't suited to polyamory... because they... hate the idea of those chicks having other guys," and have it questioned, then calling the questioner a bad name somehow justifies making a generally wrong statement?

    ReplyDelete