Are you an owl or a lark?

Are you an Owl or a Lark?


  • Total voters
    25

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
What "makes" the 'difference' in this instance? What exactly?

People don't own people sexually, whether they wish they did is irrelevant. Although some people do get into totally submissive slave relationships as a form of edgeplay, but that's very rare even among pervs.
 

grizzleb

Well-known member
You're wrong, being in a loving relationship is not exactly the same as having a fuck buddy. It may have the same limitations; i.e you can directly penetrate the other persons experience, but they're not directly equivalent. I mean, when you reduce it as you do, then the role of a parent or sibling or friend is always lesser than the person I happen to be fucking. It's not always the case, and sex isn't the be-all and end-all of human interaction.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
What "makes" the 'difference' in this instance? What exactly?

There's no point arguing with you when you're being as dogmatic as this. The difference between a short, casual relationship and a long, exclusive one is that...one's short and casual and the other's long and exclusive. How can that not be different? Do you not feel different when you stop seeing someone you've slept with a couple of times vs. the break-up of a relationship of several years? I can almost tell you're ging to try and score some rhetorical point by saying "no", but even if it were true for you (which I doubt) I would hazard a guess that it's not true for most people.

People don't own people sexually, whether they wish they did is irrelevant. Although some people do get into totally submissive slave relationships as a form of edgeplay, but that's very rare even among pervs.

But you're just begging the question by assuming that being in an exclusive relationship = trying to "own someone sexually". Which I think is just a ridiculous distortion of how most people - certainly most young or young-ish people, today - feel about relationships. It's a kind of contract (which sounds weird when applied in that way, but that's nonetheless what it is), and if both partners enter into it willingly, how does that mean one is "owning" the other?

Put it this way: I don't "own" any of my housemates, but if one them starting stealing my stuff and wrecking the house, I'd be justified in telling them to leave, right? Or if one of my friends behaved appallingly, it wouldn't be out of order for me to tell them to sort themselves out and apologise, or to consider us no longer friends - doesn't imply any "ownership", does it?

If you want to be able to do your own thing and sleep with whoever you like, that's great, no-one here is knocking that (as much as it may flatter your prejudices to imagine that we're all frothing mad at the very idea...) - but to say that anyone who would rather be in an exclusive relationship (which, in any case, is highly unlikely to last forever) is desperately trying to "own" their partner is stupid. What if there is a mutual expectation of fidelity - does that mean then "own each other"? Anyone would think you were talking about forced marriages, FFS.

It's a further ridiculous distortion to imply that expectations of partner fidelity are only ever about a man not wanting his gf/wife to go around fucking other men, rather than the other way round.
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
I think the idea of a mutual contract, though it's an awful word, is a pretty good one. The problem is, in my view, that this 'contract' relies upon certain assumed social norms, so that what one person expects from a relationship is not what the other expects...

And of course, it is completely correct that one person can end it anytime, anyplace, no warning. No ownership involved...
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
And of course, it is completely correct that one person can end it anytime, anyplace, no warning. No ownership involved...

That's it exactly - nomad is talking about monogamy as if it's tantamount to slavery. A slave cannot generally say to himself "Hmm, I'm not sure I like being a slave" and walk out on his owner.

There is no right or wrong way to go about being in relationships or having sex, as long as one partner isn't abusing the trust of the other. I think that's basically the long and short of it. So by all means have an open or casual relationship, but don't start getting jealous and possessive over your partner because they're seeing other people...and by the same token, don't go fucking around behind your partner's back if there's an expectation of faithfulness. If you're not happy with the arrangement you're in, you can call it off and find someone who wants something closer to what you want, can't you?
 

martin

----
Put it this way: I don't "own" any of my housemates, but if one them starting stealing my stuff and wrecking the house, I'd be justified in telling them to leave, right? Or if one of my friends behaved appallingly, it wouldn't be out of order for me to tell them to sort themselves out and apologise, or to consider us no longer friends - doesn't imply any "ownership", does it?

Well yeah, I think most people are more disappointed by betrayal of trust than enraged by patriarchal concepts of ownership being subverted. Like if someone told you they were your best mate and you could rely on them any time, and then contradicted themselves by their behaviour, you'd probably be more like, "Well, why did they bother saying all that?" than "The scum! How DARE they violate my new, improved 'Friendship Code'?"

Of course, you do get sad blokes who think that they're "in there" cos the girl at customer enquiries smiled at them, and who take an 'x' on the end of the text to mean they're going to be married to the sender forever and ever. And then bring up anything 'nice' they've done for an ex as proof she's a bitch, like there's some commodities trading standard involved. But they're normally jerks in all fields of life, and are just as selfish and pathetic towards friends, family, employees, shop assistants, etc

One question I've genuinely got for people in open relationships - do you not get a BIT jealous from time to time? Say you're a man/woman in a fivesome, and the other four all pop off for a weekend of mucky fun and don't invite you. Wouldn't your ego be chain-smoking and pacing up and down? Especially if you can't find anyone to fuck? And, even if on an unsentimental / non-romantic level, would you be thinking stuff like "Shit, does my arse look big? Why did June get asked along and not me? How can SHE be better at handjobs? Is Terry's cock thicker than mine?"
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Yeah, that Terry is hung like a giraffe's leg, I hear.

Hmm, difficulty is when people's expectations don't match. What is acceptable varies greatly between people, although I think this is one area where social norms are actually helpful to codify people's behaviour to a certain extent within different societies.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Yeah, that Terry is hung like a giraffe's leg, I hear.
That's why Bridge has dropped out of the England team.

I've had open relationships but normally after a while they've either ended or we've got closer to each other and kinda mutually agreed to stop them being open because jealousy or something like was creeping in or might potentially creep in. I think that as long as everyone knows where they stand it's all cool. And if you don't like where you stand you can always opt out.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Which I think is just a ridiculous distortion of how most people - certainly most young or young-ish people, today - feel about relationships.

dunno man, I think that's assuming a pretty liberated view of how "most" people view relationships. I suspect your views - & those of people likely to post here in general - might suffer from a selection bias, i.e. younger (raver dad phenomenon aside) and more liberal (or radical, as the case may be) in terms of social outlook or cultural values or whatever you want to call it. like, lots of the people I know have likely participated in open or at least are pretty open to the idea (both in a hooking up sense &/or in a more explicit rejecting monogamy sense), as well as to more nuanced outlooks on sexuality, gender, etc. but I would hardly extrapolate from that to the population at large. (nor, tbc, do I think it makes the kind of people I'm likely to hang around with "better" or smarter or something) monogamy is still the prevailing, almost hegemonic standard, at least for serious relationships; as in,there's hooking up & one-night stands & so on but usually an insistence on monogamy if things get serious - & if -both- parties are happy with that, great. personally I prefer relationships that are open - I find it actually makes things better b/c, for one, when the fruit isn't forbidden people are actually less interested, at least in my experience - but they're a tremendous amount of work.

the idea of a contract, I dunno, surely that's not how relationships work, they're so sticky and tangled up. there are all kinds of complicating factors that prevent people from "just walking out". I do agree that women can be just as jealous as men when fidelity is expected. however, there are still enormous double standards for cheating. when men do it, it's always about betraying the family, or possibly being a jerk, but there's also a kind of admiration, as in that dude can pull or whatever. when women do it they're, yunno, sluts or whatever analogous term you want to toss in there. that double standard is much mored distasteful than (healthy) monogomous relationships.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
dunno man, I think that's assuming a pretty liberated view of how "most" people view relationships. I suspect your views - & those of people likely to post here in general - might suffer from a selection bias, i.e. younger (raver dad phenomenon aside) and more liberal (or radical, as the case may be) in terms of social outlook or cultural values or whatever you want to call it. like, lots of the people I know have likely participated in open or at least are pretty open to the idea (both in a hooking up sense &/or in a more explicit rejecting monogamy sense), as well as to more nuanced outlooks on sexuality, gender, etc. but I would hardly extrapolate from that to the population at large.

Well yeah, maybe - but then, I'm talking about the people I know and the people I'm likely to meet through those people. Young(ish), mainly educated, people, in London, in 2010. If you want to start talking about *everyone*, well hell, plenty of people think marriage is a sacred covenant sworn before God and that sexual activity outside that context is a heinous sin. Too bad for them, I guess. I was just trying to counter nomad's assertion that all straight men (or "most men" or "a lot of men", or whatever, since I pulled her up on "men [period]") secretly think they have the God-given right to go around sticking their cock here, there and everywhere but would throw a fit if they thought their gf/wife was so much as looking at another man. I mean sure, there are still some sexist old-fashioned dickheads who think like that, but I hardly think it's indicative of the prevailing attitude these days.

the idea of a contract, I dunno, surely that's not how relationships work, they're so sticky and tangled up. there are all kinds of complicating factors that prevent people from "just walking out".

Well yes, of course there are! These are the emotional ties that are the sine qua non of any long-term relationship - even an open one - aren't they? The kind of ties that generally aren't present, by definition, in a casual short-term fling, no matter how much 'chemistry' and great sex there may be. That's the difference I was talking about above; the difference nomad, for reasons best known to herself, would like to pretend doesn't exist. The kind of ties that, most of the time, mean you don't dump your partner of however many years because they did something that slightly annoyed you, because (shock horror) there is more to the relationship than having someone you can fuck at your convenience.

(To be clear, I'm talking still about young (for some value of 'young') people here, so I don't mean "complicating factors" like kids or shared ownership of a house.)

I do agree that women can be just as jealous as men when fidelity is expected. however, there are still enormous double standards for cheating. when men do it, it's always about betraying the family, or possibly being a jerk, but there's also a kind of admiration, as in that dude can pull or whatever. when women do it they're, yunno, sluts or whatever analogous term you want to toss in there. that double standard is much mored distasteful than (healthy) monogomous relationships.

Again, I think that would depend on what kind of social milieu you're talking about. Among people I know, I don't think a guy doing this would get any more of a lenient treatment than a woman doing the same thing, and I certainly can't imagine there being much "admiration" for the "achievement" of cheating on his girlfriend. Though you're probably right that there are still plenty of people who think like that, I guess.
 

massrock

Well-known member
I seem to be both at the moment, but usually an owl when left to my own devices. Mornings are beautiful though.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
This thread is like a strawman a minute! I wasn't talking about Mr. Tea's 20-year-old friends in this thread, at any point. I was talking about our society. And even then, I never said anything about the fact that people don't get more "tied up" when they live together for a long time versus just sleeping together a couple of times. Duuh.

The difference I don't think is exists is a hard and fast one where two people are suddenly "attached" and the world outside stops existing, so they're "together" and not just "casual" anymore.

People imagine that open relationships mean orgies every weekend.

Nope. It's a lot of hard work. Like any relationship.

Like Sasha says "it's a lot of hard fucking work!" It looks like she has A cup breast implants, which is actually kind of adorable if you think about it.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"It looks like she has A cup breast implants, which is actually kind of adorable if you think about it."
That is sort of sweet I think for some reason - no idea how you can tell though.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
This thread is like a strawman a minute!

Oh, the irony... :rolleyes:

And even then, I never said anything about the fact that people don't get more "tied up" when they live together for a long time versus just sleeping together a couple of times. Duuh.

You said there was "no difference" between casual hook-ups and long-term relationships. But now apparently there is. So is there, or isn't there?

The difference I don't think is exists is a hard and fast one where two people are suddenly "attached" and the world outside stops existing, so they're "together" and not just "casual" anymore.

Sure, there are shades and gradations, I acknowledged that - but that's not the same thing as there being "no difference".

(And just out of interest, have you never been with someone and had the feeling that, as far as the two of you were concerned, the world outside the room might as well not exist? Obviously you can't be like that all the time, every day...but when it does happen, it's quite something. And I think it's certainly possible to feel "attached" like that - though of course you don't kid yourself that it's everlasting love or whatever. But this is just from my own experience, people are different of course.)



(And I heard people are more likely to get "tied up" when they visit bondage clubs, hur hur...)
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
That is sort of sweet I think for some reason - no idea how you can tell though.

Almost everyone in porn now has implants, and not even for size. Part of cosmetic surgery on breasts involves rounding out the bottom half and surgically lifting the nipple about an inch (maybe 10cm? I'm not sure). Which gives the appearance that you see on most pornstars of rounded breasts with nipples well above the absolute center of the breast.

I can tell she has them, although I'm not 100% certain, because of the distribution of the tissue toward the bottom of the breasts in an unnaturally "round" manner, along with the fact that she has about 5% body fat and a very small upper body. She was probably extremely flat chested before the surgery. But her doctors did a fantastic job, A+ all the way. They kept them natural looking and within the proportions of her body frame. I don't see any scars so they probably went in through the belly botton.

She looks like she may have very small ass implants as well, but that could just be loads of exercise.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
(And just out of interest, have you never been with someone and had the feeling that, as far as the two of you were concerned, the world outside the room might as well not exist?...)

"The relationship bubble"...

No, not really. I always have a lot on my mind.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
If you want to start talking about *everyone*

I'm just saying dude, well, two things:

1 - when you do talk "everyone" I think there's a hell of a lot more people, on the whole, who are pretty deadset about monogomy (with varying degrees of acceptance for other stuff), to the point where that has to be called the prevailing attitude. to the point where, even if you are someone with different views, you're kinda swimming against that thinking. albeit considerably less so than say, 50 or even 30 years ago. also depending on where you live & who you are you can sometimes find bubbles where more or even most people having thinking more in line with yours (the fetish communities Nomad brought up being rather extreme examples of that) but those are still mostly self-contained exceptions that prove the rule.

2 - some of the worst "sexist dickheads" I've ever known - myself included when I was younger - were also ardent, outspoken feminists (open relationships can be a great cover for good, old-fashioned skirt-chasing, tho admittedly the ladies (& various intergendered people, & so on) can get after it too in that regard). I don't think social milieu is really that much of a variable. a lot of stuff is just sexism - or whatever - expressed in different ways. not that everything's the same - certainly some things are better than others. also, there are plenty of genuinely good men out there.

as far as contracts, I didn't realize you meant the complicating factors were the contract, so to speak. but if that's the case, doesn't that imply that emotional "contracts" are precisely what keeps people -from- walking out, as opposed to encouraging them to? which isn't a bad thing, necessarily, it depends on the relationship I guess.
 
Top