Lifestyle Nightmare: Where Were the Hosts?

[sweetshyquiet]

Originally Posted by Uomo

does that mean that sex in the lifestyle need be "meaningless"...

....but on a different level ... I'm just looking to take it one step further than you are (weaving emotional intimacy into the mix). It doesn't have to be anything mind-shattering or serious....

As I would have it: I am just an actor on a stage slipping into the mind of the character he portrays on the screen (in this case: your lover). I still don't know why everybody thinks that would be such a terrible thing. I think it would be a WONDERFUL thing...

...And somewhere out there, I have a female counterpart. Plenty of women think as I do. I just don't know if that person I'm seeking is in the lifestyle. Sure would be nice if she were.

Sex in the lifestyle doesn't have to be "meaningless" (but I'd suggest you start to acknowledge that what constitutes "meaning" is different for everyone). But in case you haven't figured it out yet, you're looking for the lovey-dovey romantic intimacy-type sex in the wrong place.

All the labels are tricky, and it's all user-defined and there isn't a big official dictionary somewhere... but people in the lifestyle that are set up to have the sort of thing you are looking for are more likely to identify themselves as polyamorous or part of an open marriage.

Whereas, healthy people who identify themselves as swingers are looking for extracurricular sex without the emotional intimacy. They get all the romance they want at home. In my experience, they prefer to play together, and the "divide and conquer" vision you seem to harbor is going to be an outright turn-off or affront, as many responses you've already received would seem to corroborate.

It's not that what you are looking for doesn't exist. It's that you're going about it with too little information and in the wrong places.

[sereneiders]

Originally Posted by Uomo

Mrs. Uomo ??? You're right. I can take a good beating over the internet just fine and well ... but a bona-fide beating? Only if it is S&M night at the Uomo household. You're right. I might not have the courage to pull that one off. I'll have to think about it. She tells me she's poked around on the site once or twice. I shudder to think just maybe ... yikes!.

Well, at least I have to admit you're honest. Altough this one leave you in the place of the cheating husband, the kind of person that represent all the oposite values than the ones the lifestylers stand for.

Originally Posted by Uomo

Bored ... and enjoying the dialogue. I'm a workaholic. I live in this place (my office) and today ... I just feel like I need to take an extended break. Anyway ... if so many of you are taking the time to thoroughly respond to my posts, I think its only common courtesy that I respond in like kind. It's my of saying: "Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I appreciate your feedback." And I do. Sure ... I burn a few hours on the thread ... but how much time, effort and money will I ultimately save in the big picture (as I come to learn that the lifestyle is not for me)? In the big picture, I'm doing myself a huge favor.

Honest again... altough still centeded on your own bellybuttom. People around here doesn't expect common courtesy for you, at least not alone. Telling us that you're writting just because you're bored turns us all into an "Elisa" machine that waste our time to give you some weird digital entertainment trough the web, something that fit what was already said, defining you as a troll.

Originally Posted by Uomo

But does that mean that sex in the lifestyle need be "meaningless" (yikes! -- there goes another time-bomb).

What's wrong with making pretend you love the person you are having sex with? As I see it, the only difference between what I would do with a woman (and what others seem to rail against) is that I would prefer that we slip away in our minds and simulate our having something ... a little more special. I think that would make the whole experience a little more ... special. Who hasn't watched a romantic movie and allowed their minds to drift into the shoes of the actors in love. Same thing in real time. Why not act it out in real life? It could be an amazing experience.

Well, here again you have a missconception, poliamory is close to swinging, but it is not swinging. There are swingers that could be up to a poliamoral relation, but they're NOT looking for such a relation in advance in the swingers arena; they will swing and, should some romantic feelings brings up, they may be up to give it a chance.

In the other hand, even for poliamoral relations, these would involve everyone in the couples involved, NO ONE would accept a poliamoral relation where you would be cheating on your wife about your feelings.

You want to ROLEPLAY a romantic affair? Mmmmm, it's possible, but too dangerous for the couple that agree to play such a game, where they have everithing to loose while you protect your own marriage by leaving your wife outside the game. You'd be asking too much for the investment you are up to make.

What you don't seem to grasp here is that swinging is a SHARED activity a couple engages into, and even if eventually just one of them participates activelly in the action, it's something they WILL share later on. Third parties, no matter if other couples or people alone, are reduced to mere toys, and they know and agree they took the role of toys for the other couple. I know the word "toy" in this context sounds too raw and deprecative, but that's the place you have to expect to have when in front of a swinger couple.

Of course, swingers know how to play this game of using-being toys, and they take a lot of care to avoid feeling and making feel their partners as if they were toys, but this have to do with being respectfull and with high moral standards that fit to everyone involved, following the basic premise of "avoiding do to others what you expect not to be done to you".

So, in the swinging arena you have to offer yourself as a toy, providing the explicit limits on how far this "toy" role could go, and you have the right to expect those limits to be taken into acount. In the other hand, you have to accept other people as "toys", listening to their limits and being respectfull, and as to be apreciated, pay attention on other people feelings all the way down the road.

If you find some people that you and your partner enjoy as toys, and they enjoy you both as their toys, and you find out there are other things you have in common, that may evolve in a friendship, and ultimatelly (and very rarely) in a poliamoral relationship.

But you cannot expect to be more than a mere toy from the very begining, and certainly you cannot demmand to be more than a mere toy.

sereneiders

PS: For the other board members, and before the beating for the oversimplification and the use of the word "toy", I just felt this oversimplification could fit to make Uomo understand what to expect.

[sweetshyquiet]

Originally Posted by intuition897

However, what you are suggesting is not polyamory either. Just ask anyone at a poly board, I'm sure. What you are suggesting is plain old, ordinary, run-of-the-mill adultery. There are ways to indulge these desires for multiple emotional connections with others without resorting to pretense and deceit.

Technically, adultery is defined as a married person having voluntary sex with someone who isn't their spouse. So, by that line, lots of us are committing adultery.

But, intuition897, I agree with your core point -- which I'm taking to be that Uomo is trying to dress up a pig (cheating) in a prom dress (it's "special", "meaningful," it's romantic, an implied better or more evolved relationship, etc.).

But after it all, it's still just a pig.

[Uomo]

Uomo ... is signing off (of the thread) ... and calling it a day. I could probably keep this dialogue up forever (and by the looks of things, we probably would keep it up forever) ... but, alas, Uomo has bills to pay ... and needs to get back to work.

I've had a LOT of fun on this thread and was amazed at the quality of the responses. It was incredible. You are all so special in your own ways. So much thoughtful information ...

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much !!

Happy trials (to you) ... until we meet again -- Uomo Universale

[dragonblade]

I just felt the need to add my two cents after reading all 5 pages of this thread

Uomo, I can understand (in a sense) where you're coming from. In the past, I wondered what it'd be like if I had chosen another path, had romantic involvment with others, and then came home to my SO. But let me clarify this. This was back when I was in a 4 year relationship with my ex. I thought I'd probably marry this man, but wanted romance and freshness, etc. But the fact of it is.... deep down I wasn't happy.

As we know by now, I married my HS sweetheart after having been apart for 6 years and I realized that the reason I wanted these things before, is because I wasn't happy with my ex. Now let me clarify further, I did NOT get back together with my husband before leaving my ex. I didn't even entertain the idea. However, I know (as I've always really known) that my husband is my soulmate, my lifepartner. He'll never be anything less to me because he is so engrained to the very fiber of my being. I can't have romantic love with someone else, because all my love isn't mine anymore...it was given to my husband years ago at the age of 16 Sappy I know, but it really is true.

You say you're happy with your wife, and that it's just an extention, and a couple years ago, I would have been right along side arguing the same thing. But being with my husband now, and the level of friendship, communication, openness and just all around feeling for each other is something I'd never want him to (nor would I want to) share with another. It's not something you can spread like peanut butter, it's a wholly giving and nurturing and endearment of one soul to another..with not mentioning your wife much, how exactly do you want to make love to another? You say she would allow you, but does she realize the extent of what you want? Would you allow her to do the same? Realize that I am asking not "would you allow her to sleep with another" rather "would you allow her to make love to another, knowing the encompassment of soul that requires if done right?" From all your posting, even though you said you're happy with your wife, it makes me truly believe that you are not because of not having the same level of intimacy (which seems to be what your looking for with others ) with your wife that we ( as a board collective [excuse me for speaking freely for others, this is just what I've observed here]) seem to have with our SO's.

I really do feel for you Uomo, perhaps because I was born and bred in CT and miss it makes me nicer, (just kidding) but seriously give all of this some thought. Reconnect with your wife, do to her what you want to do to others instead of looking outside your marriage, and if you cannot, or do not, perhaps you should think about giving her her freedom so as she can be truly loved by one, and you can find your soulmate too.. Perhaps the Mrs. really should post to give her feedback, because as we all know by now...most the time 1/2 the story is no real story at all...maybe her perspective will enlighten us to the deeper (on her end) aspects of this whole thing?

Much respect to you for not choosing to flame others who have flamethrow you, I don't know if I'd be able to keep my head so high, but remember, don't be so high as to be ignorant to what is surrounding you, and what others are trying to help you see.

I wish you the best.

~~Blade~~

[intuition897]

Originally Posted by sweetshyquiet

Technically, adultery is defined as a married person having voluntary sex with someone who isn't their spouse. So, by that line, lots of us are committing adultery.

But, intuition897, I agree with your core point -- which I'm taking to be that Uomo is trying to dress up a pig (cheating) in a prom dress (it's "special", "meaningful," it's romantic, an implied better or more evolved relationship, etc.).

But after it all, it's still just a pig.

Well...being the rebel that I am, I choose to deny Merriam-Webster's definition of adultery and I substitute my own. They've used the popular definition, but have failed to question it further.

My own definition of adultery says that sex is merely the vehicle by which we commit adultery in most cases. It is the intent behind the sex, and the fact that someone is victimized by our actions that defines adultery.