Secondary wants another relationship?

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by WesternSwing

It is funny you mention this since Mrs. WS and I were just talking about it today. There are a couple of poly situations in the Pagan community here and with a few exceptions it seems that several of the men have always had multiple women as long as we've known them, but are very closed-minded to them having other men. We have discussed that these men are using the Pagan belief system and the openess about sex in it to do simply further their goal of being with all the women they want. There is an arrogance and selfishness about them that completely does not follow, nor represent what both the Pagan belief system or polyamory is about.

Mr. WS

By Paganism I assume you are talking about the neo-pagan Wicca like paganism and not some more traditional paganism.

Pagan itself is a non-descriptive term as basically any panthesistic religon is Pagan.

The problem with the neo-Pagan movement is there is no real tradition to fall back on. Everyone sort of makes it up as they go along. While some will claim it stems from the ancient Celts or Gauls or whatever pre-Christian northern European group they pick, real information is very sparce and often only located in Roman accounts.

From what I've been able to gather, most modern Pagan's would be quite uncomfortable with the 'old time religion' which seemed very brutal and brutish.

Where I'm going with this is that traditions tend to be based on some wisdom. Perhaps the time for that wisdom is past in some cases, but they didn't form randomly, and were of vlaue at some point.

As there are no real traditions in neopaganism this allows charasmatic or dominant people to easily exploit it to their own end. Add that many new pagans are young dissaffected christians, and its easy to see how some could be sucked into such a harem like arrangment in an attempt to fit in and be welcome.

[JP51]

Well since we appear to be a poly 4-some...the relationship part is not an issue. I do have a little of the green eye, when it comes to the secondary playing...but that is just me and it will not be an issue...it was discussed in another fourm.

[WesternSwing]

Originally Posted by Chicup

By Paganism I assume you are talking about the neo-pagan Wicca like paganism and not some more traditional paganism.

Pagan itself is a non-descriptive term as basically any panthesistic religon is Pagan.

Yes, I was referring to modern Neo-Pagan beliefs. Of course, Western Religions brand any religion or belief system not their own as "Pagan".

The problem with the neo-Pagan movement is there is no real tradition to fall back on. Everyone sort of makes it up as they go along. While some will claim it stems from the ancient Celts or Gauls or whatever pre-Christian northern European group they pick, real information is very sparce and often only located in Roman accounts.

This is true. As the new religions replaced the old, much of the beliefs and rituals of the old religions were lost.

From what I've been able to gather, most modern Pagan's would be quite uncomfortable with the 'old time religion' which seemed very brutal and brutish.

True, but so to any extent more then the religions that replaced it.

Where I'm going with this is that traditions tend to be based on some wisdom. Perhaps the time for that wisdom is past in some cases, but they didn't form randomly, and were of vlaue at some point.

Agreed. Most religions filled their respective needs of the people practicing them a that time in human development.

As there are no real traditions in neopaganism this allows charasmatic or dominant people to easily exploit it to their own end. Add that many new pagans are young dissaffected christians, and its easy to see how some could be sucked into such a harem like arrangment in an attempt to fit in and be welcome.

There are some traditions, but not to the extent of modern Western religions. As noted, much of the information on traditions and practices were lost as the new religions overtook the old religions. But, there is wisdom built in to all religions, whether or not the adherents to such decide to follow that wisdom is another thing altogether.

It's interesting that no matter the religion, human nature is a constant. And in this case the practioners are definitely using it selfishly to their advantage. I have to wonder if the tables were turned and the primary woman in the relationships wanted a MFM poly situation if they would agree to it. I very much doubt it knowing the subjects at hand. I do feel though that in any relationship where there is more then two people involved that the pedulum has to be allowed to swing both ways (no pun intended) and the possibility for a poly relationship to develop has to be open to it happening with either a FMF or a MFM scenario, or for any other possible combination for that matter. I feel if the door isn't open for it, then the intent behind it is questionable.

Mr. WS

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by WesternSwing

It's interesting that no matter the religion, human nature is a constant. And in this case the practioners are definitely using it selfishly to their advantage. I have to wonder if the tables were turned and the primary woman in the relationships wanted a MFM poly situation if they would agree to it. I very much doubt it knowing the subjects at hand. I do feel though that in any relationship where there is more then two people involved that the pedulum has to be allowed to swing both ways (no pun intended) and the possibility for a poly relationship to develop has to be open to it happening with either a FMF or a MFM scenario, or for any other possible combination for that matter. I feel if the door isn't open for it, then the intent behind it is questionable.

Mr. WS

I'm only going to be guessing and I doubt there are any real numbers on it, but my guess is MFM poly is far less common and far less stable long term than FMF poly. From a nature perspective and MFM produces no more children than monogomy so there is no benifit to the men being in that relationship, so the nature of men would be to avoid such a relationship. Women in an FMF can do well long term as long as the man is a good provider (would you rather be the second wife of a rich man or the first wife of a poor man back when poverty could equal starvation and a life of toil?) and be just as successful as a FM type of marriage.

So we as men fight our very nature which is to be jealous and 'protective' of our women. Its still seen in its more extreme state in Islamic culture which is designed to keep women out of contact of non-related males. Jealousy is as natural as love, and most have a hard time overcomming it. Interesting I've even felt twinges of it with swing partners when I've seen the other wife playing with a different couple. Its illogical, I never let it be an issue, but my basic male brain says 'mmmmm, my woman, stranger bad, must smash.'

Over all though from what I can gather, all poly relationships seem short term. It seems that people are either looking for a new one, or had them in the past etc, but what I don't see is the multi-year (decade) commitment you see from a strong marriage.

If I were to examine poly relationships scientifically, my basic assumptions to test would be that MFM poly is unstable unless the men are bisexual as well. That FMF poly is more stable than MFM poly, but likely to be broken up with the secondary wife finds her own primary male. I would also assume very wealthy men would be able to have more a stable FMF than an average male.

Over all I think a MFFF++ with children would be mostly stable as there would be ample help with child care and allow for large famlies while still allowing personal freedom for the women involved. Many 'traditional' mormon women enjoy this senerio, even when the women are professionals, much to the amazment of some feminists.

[sereneiders]

Chicup made an interesting point here.

Now, I'll drift in other direction, since WesternSwing mentioned in other post the Belthame seremony, and I stated correlating this with texts like Graves' The Wite Goddess (diregarding the evaluation you may do about it) and some others that were used to suppor a feminist re-reading of history.

Now, it is very likely that I'll make mistaken assumptions here, and I'll apreciate them to be pointed out. As Chicup said, Paganism is the Roman Christians name for the rest of the religions, but I guess WesternSwing meant the europeans religions rooted on the oldest Greek miths, referring to the times of Era, mother of Zeus who created the world.

In the other hand, I believe there is a male and a female subculture which are like oil and water, no matter the effort we put on it, there's a point where women are total alien for males, and males total alien for women. IMO, this is rooted in an existential problem we all face, but women and men have different toolsets to deal with. The question is about the purpose of our existence and our legacy.

Now, if we travel backwards in time, we should be able to reach to a point where is reasonable to suppose men and women didn't correlate sex with procreation: people just fuked around instinctively, childs poped out from the women bellies, and those were unrelated events. At this point, women purpose seemed to be obvious, while mens purpose wasn't so clear. Even when mankind was able to make the correlation between sex and procreation, the question remained, because matherhood was something given for granted to the women, while fatherhood requested an act of faith from the men. This was true until the last few decades where DNA tests were able to grant fatherhood for sure, and even so, most males wouldn't ask for a DNA test without some ground to challenge the faith they have (since it would be offensive for women). So, I guess the entire tapestry of our cultures (all the cultures) was made around this problem and the ways to solve them.

Now, allow me to drift in a conjeture here: those old cultures were motherhoods ones, women represented the Nature as the force able to bring life to the world, the earth itself was seen as a woman, and men had to respect this "female" peace ruling the world. As for the women, they reached an stable situation regarding the exitential problem, since the nature reasure them about her role and legacy, but for the male, this was a pretty volatile scenario, they were asked to reasure only on faith without anything in exchange.

So, men needed something in exchange, and that something was the result of a symbolic operation (or several ones): "if I owe the factory, then I owe the factory product and it production ability". This operatin lead to fatherhood: women belonging to men, being exchanged by families as goods, whose kids carried the father (last)name while the mother name was deemed to be forgoten in time. This was a more stable scenario for men to deal with their existential problem, and women didn't resisted too much, perhaps because their reasuring "tool" didn't change. Moreover, it is likely that they didn't understood the men realm and the craving to solve the problem; for women, this symbolic operation was something pointless, because they don't even need this operation to reasure themselves. However, for males this is like the unstable balance point: the rality challenged this operation on an everyday basis, just the doubt of the women fidelity would be enough challenge. In the other hand, this operation was extended and aplied over the rest of the nature: men forced the nature to follow their desired peace (i.e., agriculture to force the land to produce, technology to take adventage of the nature for our purpose), and this also lead to a welfare that, we may suppose, womahood wasn't unable to achieve, just beacuse women didn't have this craving.

So, it appeals to me the following idea: womahood lead to culture development, and fatherhood to civilization as we know it today (including the problems we have from abusing the nature peace, i.e. lack of resources and pollution).

Now, back to the topic, and from the perspective of my drift, it's possible that polyamorous relationships were females outnumber the males are more likely to happen, besides what Chicup pointed out from the "biological-practical" perspective, because if the way the existential problem leads men and women behavior: for men, having several women increases the chances of ensuring a legacy, even when some child were coming from another father, which may lead to an even more stable way to solve the existential problem. As for women, once men reaches this more stable scenario, they don't face the risks of violence the previous scenario had for them, while being just another symbolic operation they don't require, thus not caring too much about wich operatin men choose to do.

Do you see this too stretched?

Now, someone help me and bring me back to the ground

[anotherway2liv]

I am currently in a 6 year poly relationship with my wife, and going on 2 years with my girlfriend. My girlfriend does have a separate relationship with a guy that has been going for about a year.

I have personally made all the mistake a man can make learning about poly, in various relationships over the years. One of the earliest things I learned was (for me) it seems that trying to restrian someone else's love for a new person will most likley end up back fireing on you at a later date. Learn to enjoy their new found joy.

[WesternSwing]

Exactly, anotherway2liv.

“Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own."

Robert Heinlein

[Menage_a_Trois]

Just wanted to welcome anotherway2liv to the forum........Great to have you here.

[anotherway2liv]

Originally Posted by Menage_a_Trois

Just wanted to welcome anotherway2liv to the forum........Great to have you here.

Thanks,
We are been mostly just reading and learning for a while, but this subject is right up our alley.

[prettylady]

Ok I really don't want to say this incase I offend but it is a question only sencondarys in a poly relationship can answer.
The Menage trio seem to have an almost utopia over in Reno, but how does it make a person feel to be refered to as a secondary? In my way of thinking, please keep in mind I am new to the lifestyle and have alot to learn, I would have a hard time swallowing this distiction between me and the other women in the relationship. I would want to be my loves primary and only(except of course playmates).
Did I ask this question clearly, I really hope I did not upset or offend anyone here.
Your friend,
Prettylady

[Menage_a_Trois]

Originally Posted by prettylady

Ok I really don't want to say this incase I offend but it is a question only sencondarys in a poly relationship can answer.
The Menage trio seem to have an almost utopia over in Reno, but how does it make a person feel to be refered to as a secondary? In my way of thinking, please keep in mind I am new to the lifestyle and have alot to learn, I would have a hard time swallowing this distiction between me and the other women in the relationship. I would want to be my loves primary and only(except of course playmates).
Did I ask this question clearly, I really hope I did not upset or offend anyone here.
Your friend,
Prettylady

Prettylady – so sorry for the delay in replying back on this………….and no offense taken here! I understand completely what you are saving. I can not answer this for everyone in poly relationships but for me and us there is no secondary, period end. I know there will be those out there saying oh bullshit, but it’s the god’s to honest truth. The only time I have ever felt like a secondary in this relationship was when I made myself feel like that early in the relationship. And I quickly learned it was EXTREMELY self-imposed. Have others tried to make me feel that way? Hell yes! Do I allow it, NOT on your life……..For us the only way this would work was for all of us to in this equally, one for all and all for US, all sharing equally in all aspects of this marriage.

And as for people walking around actually and literally calling their “secondary’s” their “secondary’s” that really doesn’t happen. It’s more likely used in the manner in which you are seeing it here on the board as an effort to explain who’s who. It’s more in a clinical discussion/sitting like this. As for you wanting to be your one and only, just really says poly isn’t necessarily for you, which is cool. Hope that helps to clear things up a little!

The Other Mrs. Menage

[prettylady]

Other Mrs. Menage,
Thanks for your responce and for not being upset at the question.
I am happy to hear that you are not the "secondary" although to be honest. With the other two in your trio I didn't really expect you were secondary a for them. You three really are ONE in a million.
Your right that poly is not for me, but it sounds like it could be a wonderful way of life.
Best wishes to you.
Your friend,
Prettylady

[prettylady]

You guys blow my mind with your wealth of knowledge and ability to so easily research and debate topics.
I may sound silly, but I often read the posts by the likes of Westernswing, Thrax, Sereneiders, and Chicup and think how the hell do they know so much about so many different things........Or have you lot got together to try and confound me?
I can see that you 4 get together and say hey lets pull one over on Prettylady. :rollseyes
Anyway sorry about the robbery of a great thread. I will go now.
Your friend,
Prettylady

[Menage_a_Trois]

Oh prettylady, being confused is a normal state of being for me! You are not alone there lol

Mr. Menage often just shakes his head at me. As for all of us plotting to make that pretty little head of yours hurt.................well if we did it wouldn't be with things like this..............it would be from holding you down and having our way with you!

The Other Mrs. Menage

[JP51]

Hopefully, the other couple in our relationship will start posting here. They finally got an account, and I told them to stop being lurkers....really love them both.