If I remember correctly your average for jerking off in a day is 5 or so (fairly disturbing that I remember this btw), which probably means most of this forum would be considered a "libido f4g" compared to you since we're running low on teenagers in S&F.

Monte,

I didn't say there was a large percentage of couples out there doing threesomes we just don't know about. It's just the total number of couples out there doing threesomes is higher than what we know about because I think we tend to hear about the ones that end badly for some reason. The people who are successfully non monogamous and want to keep that secret appear to be monogamous to everyone else.

Melk if I had to guess at a number who have at least considered some type of ethical non monogamy (this excludes cheating, which afaik hovers around 50%), I'd say it's probably somewhere in the 15% range - more common than most people think, but not common enough that the initial guess that most couples you know are indeed monogamous wouldn't much more right than wrong.

Oh and again afaik, women who admit to trying anal is 20-25%.

I really wish I could contribute to this conversation

I think the percentage of couples that go down that path is larger than what most of you think, but still not huge by any means. The reason why they go down that path ranges pretty widely from what I've gathered. And it's not always the male that starts that journey. The 30's threesome's crowd IME amongst the ones still married is almost always female initiated.

Type 1: Our marriage sucks, our sex life sucks, one or both of the partners want to experiment.

The female in one couple we are friends with propositioned us a few years ago. Her marriage sucked, their sex life sucked and was non-existent, and she wanted to experiment. She was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too close to home for us (the Mrs. best friend since middle school). Attractive, but nothing special. Makes for an interesting friendship a few years later when it's someone that you have to say "look, you're cute, but lets not **** up a friendship, not to mention your husband would not be cool with you coming up for a weekend of that". As for what she was interested in, FFM, FMF, or both, that's yet to actually be determined. In the end, they never ended up doing anything with anyone and have now patched their marriage up.


Type 2: One or both of the partners is Bi

Society says get married, have kids, blah blah blah. What it doesn't plan for is when one half of the couple goes both directions. Kinda hard to have that one in a married relationship unless you marry a tranny. Have friends that are this couple. Talk to them from time to time about their relationship and weight loss surprisingly (they are both heavier).

Type 3: The power couple

Normally a strong alpha male with an attractive female partner. Both partners are extremely confident (sometimes even arrogant dbags). They have nothing to fear from bringing in a unicorn. The unicorn is there simply as a playtoy. They use the unicorn like normal people do vibrators.

People don't have to fall completely in to one box. And I've met couples that had troubles and couples that were loving life.

Then there's full blown swingers. These ****ers are straight up crazy. And they are everywhere. Most of the time you don't even realize that they are what they are. But once you know, if you pay attention to the details you can pick up on it. Somethings you just wish you never knew. Get them drunk enough, and you never know what might happen.

Like RJ said, you never really hear about it though. Discretion is the key. Unless they think that you are on board, you'll never figure it out. It's like Fight Club. You don't talk about it.

FTR we are not swingers but have a number of friends that either are completely open or unicorn hunters. I have nothing against the lifestyle, but my parents divorced when I was young, and as a result of that, have made a commitment to not risk my marriage over something like that. Random drunk unicorn threesome. Sure. Actively hunting unicorns, swapping, swinging, etc. Nope. I'm too possessive to share what's mine, and frankly, I get laid quite often, and we've figured out the right combinations to crack the safe on a regular basis.

15% is pretty close to what I would have said. I'd probably guess around 10%. So, I guess we're not so different after all.

I approve of this post.

I talked to a fellow writer about a romance novel I was editing that included a menage a trois. He was a certified Old in his sixties and said whoa, wait, everyone I know who's opened their marriage ended up ruining their relationship because of it. Let's forget that I was talking about a completely fictional story and relationship when he made real world comments.

Automatically pointing to a relationship failing because it didn't remain monogamous is as silly as automatically pointing to a monogamous relationship failing because it DID remain monogamous.

Even though my friends in successful long-term non-monogamous and poly relationships claim that a lot of monogamous relationships absolutely do fail because their partners never consider non-monogamy

Hedonists itt.

As long as Busto approves then I can rest easy.

Or if Monte faints.

Either is good.

Doubt they never considered it. Maybe their marriages failed because they were never ably to successfully communicate their feelings to their partners or be receptive to communication from their partners which would manifest in ways harmful to the relationship --- outside of the bedroom even.

You mean like in the kitchen?

Pretty sure the first often leads to the second.

RJ's underlying point, that this is a subset of the "all toupees are bad" fallacy (i.e. there could be any number of people with toupees that are so good you never notice that they exist), has some merit, I suppose.

I've already posted my counters, namely that marriages are hard enough without injecting this into it, and when you're married and you decide to do something like this, not only do both people have to be OK with this at the time, but both have to continue to be OK with it in perpetuity. That kind of emotional health and self knowledge among married people in general, much less people that think boning BTM's rejects is a good idea, seems unlikely to be found in abundance.

Monte,

Why would it have to be okay in perpetuity?

If you both continue to be okay--even thrive--in such an arrangement, there's no problem.

If one or both of you aren't okay with it at any point, then do what is essential to any healthy intimate relationship. Discuss what you need and find a solution that works for both of you, including if that means returning to a monogamous relationship.

I also think you're basing your counter argument on a faulty premise, namely that "marriages are hard enough without injecting this into it."

People need to find what relationship models work for them, whether that be monogamy or non-monogamy or something else. And the relationship models that work for a person might vary quite a bit depending on who their partner is.

You're right, there are never any bad feelings when you try to return to monogamy after you've Eiffel Towered your wife with BTM's friend. You can just calmly and rationally decide to return to monogamy with no emotional consequences whatsoever.

You've yet to demonstrate how that's a faulty premise.

No argument here. I just think that how it works a lot of the time is that one partner is restless and wants a little strange, the other partner gets guilted into it, bad feelings inevitably ensue, etc etc. The polyamory/free love movement that the internet has allowed to blossom (because people can find each other now) is obviously a huge positive, and I think will prevent some people that lean this way from just getting married out acquiescence to societal pressure and then destroying their spouse emotionally when they inevitably give in to their wanderlust.

You're going to have to expand on this a bit. Pretty sure a swinging lifestyle wouldn't work for me no matter who I would have ended up being married to.

This debate is a lot more exciting if we assign characters to the players:

SGT RJ:



Montecore:



BustoRhymes:



KidColin:



Evoken:



loco:

Loool amazing.

Stop trolling. That's not what I said.

It seems to me a couple of things might be going on here.

You seem to be discussing non-monogamy as though it's almost always unhealthy, and that it should be positioned as a primary catalyst for the collapse of a relationship.

Is that your position?

I am saying that two people are capable of wanting and consenting to a non-monogamous relationship without this being an inherently unhealthy arrangement.

I am saying that if two people find a non-monogamous relationship doesn't work for them, they can work together to build a relationship that does work for them, which would include working together to work through and integrate any emotional or practical repercussions from their time outside monogamy.

You said: "marriages are hard enough without injecting this into it."

If you are in fact claiming that a non-monogamous arrangement inherently makes relationships MORE difficult, it is on you to demonstrate this claim. I see no reason to accept it.

I am asking you to open your mind and consider 1) there exist couples who agree to this arrangement in a healthy manner, eg without one partner consenting to it out of guilt 2) that such arrangements are entered into in a healthy manner more often than you realize

Read what I said again.

I didn't say anything about you, nor did I claim something such as a swinging lifestyle would work for everyone if they just found the right partner.

aiott that is a very funny post

fakeb,

Your ability to willfully misconstrue words remains as strong as ever

Thread has really delivered.

Monte, fakeb's point that your assumption that monogamy is somehow less difficult than nonmonogamy is an assumption not backed by anything other than cultural presumption is valid.

The relatilvely high rates of LTR infidelity as well as our own history as a species don't really support the contention that monogamy is easier or more natural.

For the record, I think that if you make a monogamous committment you should certainly do your best to live up to that, like any promise. But I don't think that it's essential for a long lasting or strong relationship - clear communication of desires and a more reality based understanding of human sexuality is more important than a specific relationship dynamic. However, I also admit this is purely theoretical on my part, as I've never been in a long term non monogamous relationship.

I do have experience with sexual incompatibility and a lack of willingless to address this ruin a relationship, though.

I'm pretty sure I never said this.

just wanna interrupt this stimulating conversation to remind everyone how ****ed up my job is

thanks for listening

you know who else has never been in a long-term non-monogamous relationship?

Anybody.

You said that marriage is difficult enough without bringing in outside people, sexually. The implication being that a third preson or otuside sexual contact naturally increases the difficulty rather than decreasing it.

Well I know this is false but whatever.