This statement, extracted from the article that Sonja posted is (imho) deserving of a thread all it's own. This sums up many thoughts into one distinct phrase.
This is probably not the way I felt a few decades ago when that thing called 'marriage' was supposed to be the grand solution.
I am curious if You think this defines You. It seems to be appropriate for me. Further, it seems that this is how I would want the other half of any relationship that I was in to be (what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?). This may apply to men more than women, therefore, I really hope the Ladies will speak up and offer their thoughts too.
We've given up defining what it is we do. While we are considered unadventurous, dull and vanilla within the world of LPIN and a few other non-typical sexual worlds we venture into, we'd be considered adventurous and even deviant by most of the "soccer mom" community we belong to (if they knew).
We consider ourselves monogamous across the board. By strict definition, this isn't true, but like so many definitions - we don't seem to fit into any of them. Sexually plural just makes us seem WAY more adventurous than we actually are!
We are here considering the screen name "Iron-Couple".
I'm glad you liked it! I've lived my entire sex life directed by that platitude. I do believe I have softened a lot over time, though. I no longer imagine I have to be so careful with my emotions. I can be plural all over the place without causing problems to myself or the people I care about.
I believe you can love or be “in love” with more than 1 person at a time so does this make me emotionally plural?
As humans I believe we have a great capacity for love and unfortunately cruelty/hate. With that capacity for love why would we only be limited to one person at a time to “be in love with”? It is society that tells us we can only be in love with one person at a time but our hearts need to be true to themselves not society
A Lady can ask any price and the client can always walk. If you accept her offer it's on you so don't bitch about it!
I think we all vary widely on how we give and receive love and feel about sex. For me I am both sexually and emotionally plural. I think I have far too much love to just be emotionally involved with one person forever. For me I would always have a primary partner but may have others to connect with emotionally as well. I am not at all opposed to the idea of plural marriage. For me, its important for all partners to be in a relationship with me to be plural as I can't offer them monogamy and I truly don't want it from them. It involves a certain amount of pressure and guilt to give that partner more than others.
Sexually, plurality makes relations with primary partners more special as it involves a different type of emotional connection for each one. Hook ups are fun because they are care free and no strings, and you always go back to you partner with a renewed fervor for them. I also have an intense sex drive that realistically not many men alone could take care of. I also enjoy playing in different dynamics for variety such as with women, couples and orgies. Those are very enriching for me personally.
Thanks all for sharing and opening up this topic. I like reading about everyone's perspectives![/size]
