tangie wrote:
In my world, the one that William is creating, is that polyamory is defined by him. What he does is what he does. Polyamory for you can be defined by how either one of you sees it.
How I perceive the word itself is "more than one love". Someone you have a casual play experience, IMHO, would not be polyamorous'.
Polyamory, whether M/s or not, can be more generally defined as someone who has a loving relationship with another. It may be a triad or more, and whatever geometrical configuration one can imagine. It can be part time, full time, once in a lifetime. It can be total slutdom, or polyfidelity.
It is a fairly unstructured way of life, self-defined and hard to practice.
I have had some major issues lately surrounding being separated from William, and his choosing this time to step up the poly aspect of his life. It's very very hard to accept some things--but as it has been often said to me, "if it were easy, everyone would be doing it". It's NOT easy for me, and I've not been particularly successful at total acceptance.
Someone on the board here was unsure whether she could be considered a slave because she couldn't accept (or was having a hard time accepting) something her Master had done. I need to go on the record as saying that having angry thoughts, expressing them, being upset and/or reacting out of that upsetedness does not make a person "less slave". Being always placid does not make a "good slave". For people in our Western culture, polyamory can be one of the hardest social/non-physical things to accept. We are bucking 2,000 years of Western monogamy when we do so. I don't know but sometimes I wonder when something has been a part of culture for so long, at what point does it evolve to become biological? If there is any such thing, monogamy would be it. So being polyamorous is probably never going to be "easy" at first, no matter how much one discusses in advance.
So for those who are just now exploring that side of life, please understand that to be successful at it, it takes time (months if not years), an extreme level of communication, and to be honest, a very flexible nature that isn't rooted too strongly in Christianity. It doesn't hurt to be masochistic. (there's an unintentional pun in there somewhere, lol).
I also should say that I had my first poly experience in (about) 1971/72. I've always been open to it, loved Heinlein, etc. I've discussed it, thought about it, before ever hearing of the word. Before my knowledge of M/s.
But I'm here to tell you that when William went on a date with a vanilla woman, I almost lost it. He wasn't even being "amorous", just a date to a movie. It has taken me a long time to work into acceptance. It didn't matter that I had my first poly experience nearly 3 decades ago. It didn't matter that I read Heinlein. I hurt, and hurt bad. I felt like a failure, I was too old, I was yadda yadda yadda. What I'm saying is that each situation is different, and every human is unique. One size doesn't fit all, and your mileage may vary.
If you (edited to add I mean the general you) find it very hard to deal with, go easy on yourself, realizing that what you are doing is groundbreaking, no matter what structure your relationship takes.
i do agree that it seems more natural to love only one person because that is what you are exposed to in the mainstream culture (tv, etc). Look at fairy tales- marry the prince and live happily ever after with only that person.
it never bothered that Master would have sex with other woman. it was just sex. However, it was hell hearing my master, my loved one, tell someone else he loved them.
it is indeed going to take years to adjust and accept that someone can love more than one person. |
|
