You are here


So as to not take over the other thread.

I do have emotional relationships.  If something happened and I or my partner wasn't able to have sex, I could work around that.  If our emotional/intellectual relationship diminished, it'd be over.  For me, the "connection" is the most important thing.  Sex is important to me, but it isn't defining - although bad sex will end a budding relationship.  I can usually tell by kissing styles.  I tend to work on the "connection" with people who I think will be good sex partners, so it goes hand-in-hand.  In a relationship, for me, what makes us "us" is the overall bond.

I avoid casual sex.  There's a high probability of first-time sex being bad because partners aren't in tune with what the other person likes.  I'm likely to be sexually monogamous, because for sex to be good (for me) it takes a few times with the same person and that wanders into emotional monogamy space.  However, I don't feel necessarily tied to either casual sex or monogamy.  

I dunno why I don't have a problem with open-ish relationships.  If people continue this dicussion, it may help me put it in words.  

hmmm...  sometimes things don't always make sense.  especially in emotions.


aww, moonkeymama! i love this "rant"!!

I know, I know, there's LGBT to represent too.  That's birth control for ya! ;)  that's what everyone should do, find a same sex friend to touch your genitals for you and then we'll cut down on the population, the disease, the pollution, the hunger, you name it!  I've just solved all the world's problems.

i agree. heterosexuality is what is fucking up this place. we need more girl-girl and boy-boy action.

i think the topic of multiple sex partners is a good one to talk about because it is different than love. i like to think that being safe and responsible with your sexuality is the only way one should be able to do it. it would be cool if someone did something "unsafe" that their genitals would fall off and they would have to wait a year for new genitals to grow in and "function." now that would solve a lot of problems AND is much more interesting way to fix it than anything else i can think of.


I'm not bothered by the self-stated trollishness of the post, it just would have been nice if it was accurate.  We can be inspired to debate even without deliberate enticement through misrepresentation.  I keep coming back to this thread to say something real, but then it feels pointless since the first post mocks authentic debate.


PLEASE NOTE: if anything offended you, good.  i wrote this purposely less considerate than I normally write things to get people to respond, so don't get nasty.  it's all in the name of lively conversation.  If you're still pissed, get a sense of humor.

You don't even take the time to state what you disagree with, or what is "inaccurate", because, why?  Perhaps you could tone down the pretentious vibe, and be a little more friendly.

If you have an issue with my post being "trollish", report it to the administration, they can decide what needs to be decided, and I can take the hint that me and my "offensive" opinions aren't welcome. 

i think maybe these are the parts that got to her.  i could be wrong.

but admitting that you were trying to be offensive might be what seemed "trollish".


wow, you guys, there's so much stuff here that I haven't read, but I like this thread! To throw in my two cents, I don't have a problem with poly relationships. I know they aren't all the same, and as long as everything is safe and consensual that's all that matters to me!

I have to point out that the folks I know who are not currently monogamous are pretty smart about it - they talk with their partner(s) and lover(s) about their boundaries, which is very healthy and I think more monogamous folks would benefit from doing this more often! I also feel that my poly friends are smart enough to know how to go about things safely. Safety is usually part of an agreement between partners when there are multiple partners involved, at least for the people I know. I'm this is not always the case, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with MM on the point that non-monogamy is unhealthy or unsafe. I also cannot concieve of these people doing anything "for attention" or validation - they genuinely like, love and/or are attracted to the people they're seeing, and that's why they're seeing them.

I also want to mention that I don't have an issue with people whose relationships are based on sex (as long as everyone involved is on the same page). Sometimes physical attraction can be very strong, and people can have a great time together from that, and sometimes it will grow into something else. Other times it will remain a physical attraction alone. Again, as long as everyone knows what's going on, and things are safe and everyone consents, I don't see a problem with this. I've witnessed some relationships start off this way and later end up being more serious, and/or monogamous, which didn't work at all for the people involved. They didn't have much of an emotional or intellectual connection, although their physical attraction was very strong, and it worked out best when they had a casual thing going.

Another thing I want to mention is the meaning people place on the word Love. I think we sort of get the idea drilled into us at a young age that romantic love can only be one way and mean only one thing - intimacy, commitment, etc. In my experience I've learned that this is not the case. Every relationship I've been a part of had some degree of love present, but it was never the same as the last. I think it's important to acknowledge that this happens and it doesn't make some relationships less valid than others. I've had some great relationships and some less than great, but at some point during each one I felt some form of love towards whoever I was involved with. Even though most of them were not recent, I still feel that I have a small amount of love & affection for each one. It doesn't mean I want to get back together with these people (uhh definitely not, heh) but I acknowledge that I felt that way, and it doesn't mean there's less love to go around to the people I might be with in the future.

Anywho. I hope I haven't repeated alot of what other people said. I didn't want to read all the pages. I really like the discussion going here, keep it coming people! :)


lol.  That was a strong response.  It's a more fulfilling debate when people state their position rather than play devil's advocate in order to try to get people riled.

I agree with you about safety, tb. 

Clinical monogamy means sex with one partner for the rest of your life.  Serial monogamy is where you have sex with one person at a time.  Clinical monogamy does reduce exposure to risk.  Serial monogamy isn't protective.  There are multiple elements that compose safe sex,  including physical barriers, testing, and open communication.  Those are equally applicable across demographics.

It's also important to note that STDs can be spread through saliva, blood, semen, and vaginal secretions (and hepatitis is found in feces).  Non-penetration sexual activities, such as mutual masturbation and oral sex, also carry risk. 

If you're not abstinate, you're at risk.  If you're at risk, practice safe sex.  One partner at a time does not make someone inherently smarter or more diligent about implementing safe sex measures.


tino.  yes!  i agree with everything that you said.  there are many different ways that one can look at polyamory and each of those relationships or groups of relationships will be different than the next, its based on trust, safety and discussion.

has anyone posted this link yet?    that helped me out a lot when i was trying to figure out how my monogamous boyfriend fit into my poly lifestyle.  meaning.  goodbye poly relationships.  : (


That's a cool site, kelsi.

I haven't heard of monosexual before (relating only to one gender as potential or actual sexual/romantic partners; straight or gay/lesbian).  That's how I see "straight" and gay.  As the same thing.  I might make a monosexual marriage sign for a same-sex marriage rally.


Ok, well this is obviously becoming personal, but here are my views on the matter at hand.

In your original post, mm, you explicitly stated that you were being purposely offensive, and that you wanted to "rile" people up. WELL, that's what happened! Why so surprised? The problem is, such an offensive post (with very personal matters) tends to just make people angry at the tone, and not want to discuss the topic. Alternatively, it might not make people angry, but just turn them off to the debate. I mean, we can legitimately debate without blatantly insulting people/groups of people, and this is where the "trollish" talk comes in.

I wasn't personally insulted/offended by your post, but I was like uhhhhhh, ok, and it definitely didn't rile me up to respond (to the debate topic).

Something that does bother me, however, is insulting the whole of vegweb, and saying that if we don't get/agree/understand your post, we don't have a sense of humor. You've said this multiple times. Just because I (or whomever) don't share your viewpoint, or find the same things humorous, doesn't mean I don't have A sense of humor.

Then, it became a lot more personal, with insults (pretentious, not friendly, etc.). hh did not initially attack you, she just didn't agree with your post. She's not obligated to say why, either. Hey, it might annoy you to not get a debate response, but that doesn't mean she's being vindictive.

It might be that I (and others) just don't share your sense of humor, but I don't see how that post was meant to "lighten people up." I think it was the opposite!

I think a lot of us are guilty of taking things too personally at times (and specifically in the VW debate board), but that doesn't mean anyone is a bad person, or that VW is "bad."



wow, tino & kelsi, i agree with everything said between you two.  :)

kelsi, thank you for the site.  i don't remember if anyone has linked to it before.  i think i've been to it in the past.

and tino, you state things so well.   :)>>>


*jaw slackened shock*  um...

*re-reads posts to try to figure out what happened"  um...

(moonkeymama, I did respond to your comment regarding safe sex.  I didn't respond to everything in your post.  It went in a lot of directions, so I picked one direction and responded.  Was there something, specifically, that you wanted to discuss?)


wow, thank you rd  :)>>> I can rarely discuss anything without sounding clumsy, but I guess the beauty of the web is that you get more time to think about things before you say (type) them. It's unfortunate that people haven't been getting along because otherwise this is a refreshing discussion!


WOW.  Strong douchebaggery in this thread.  I'm glad I missed it.  I feel like I should have something to add, but I'm so confused as to what's serious and what's not.

I am just in awe of the fact that (I think?) I see people in this thread lumping all the world's problems together and blaming them on heterosexuality.  I mean, by that logic, I think I'll write a thesis about how the sun is responsible for all the crime in the world--if we didn't have sun, we wouldn't have plants, and then we wouldn't have food, and then we wouldn't have people, so we wouldn't have criminals!  Honestly, anyone who wants to sit back behind their laptop and say something totally useless about how heterosexuality is fucking up the world has lost my respect entirely.  That has got to be the biggest crock I've ever read on vegweb.

Anyway.  What a crazy thread.  First vegweb has TOO MUCH of a sense of humor, and now we are not humorous enough!  Keep trying, guys.  :D


HH has edited her first response a couple times now, just so everyone knows.

Oh, goodness.  I did initially edit my post because I wasn't sure if it made sense.  mm quoted it in the very next post and it hasn't changed.

That said, mm, I'm sorry that you have a problem with me.  At this point I think we're all aware of everyone else's position and people would like to get back to the topic at hand.  I'd be happy to discuss polyamory with you.  I'll start.  In your original post you stated, if I understood it correctly, that STDs spread due to sexual "freedom."  Would you please expand on that?


Oh my.

Ten paragraphs of vitriol is a bit much, but I'm entertained.  


Yes.  You may ask baypuppy, Cali, camillus, VHZ, JW502, dinkfeet, algae, celtkat, or foofie81, or anyone else who has met me in person to verify.  I am a total unfriendly meanie.


I thought of an example of polyamory, but I'm not sure if it's a good example:  step-parents (just the love part, not the sexual part, obviously)

Two people in a (serially monogamous) relationship have a child.  Then they split up and enter (serial monogamous) relationships with other people.  That child learns to love all four parents.  She doesn't love her biological parents more, she just expands her love to include her new parents.

Good example or wanky?


See, that doesn't match what I understand polyamory to be at all.  That's not romantic love.  I think there is a huge difference between romantic and family love.  But that's just me personally.  The way I experience it, loving parents is so dramatically different than loving a romantic partner.  Not just in action (obviously), but in sentiment.  I don't think you can compare them.


See, that doesn't match what I understand polyamory to be at all.  That's not romantic love.  I think there is a huge difference between romantic and family love.  But that's just me personally.  The way I experience it, loving parents is so dramatically different than loving a romantic partner.  Not just in action (obviously), but in sentiment.  I don't think you can compare them.

Yes. Totally different. Different kinds of love!


Yes. Totally different. Different kinds of love!

And that's based in science, too.  Your body has a different physiological response/state in parental love than it does in romantic love. 



Log in or register to post comments