You are viewing IC as Guest    
Why not the site? It's free!
   
If you're already a member, it's better if you

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

poly tribal living.... better than vanilla? (54)

This post is on the Other BDSM web board.

15 Aug 09, 4:45 AM
NaughtyJim
UK(W), 5 yrs

MissFelicity wrote:

No one actually meant to take my reply quite that seriously!

Lets be honest here, mono or poly isn't better than the other. Just different. And I don't really see where "vanilla" came into it.

Fair enough. Didn't think I took it too seriously; although I didn't realise it was meant to be 'non-serious'. :)

I guess it's just a twitch against people's usual dismal criticisms of poly... For what it's worth, I think everyone has the right to pick the relationship they want; and that any long term relationships should be respected. I do think, however, that people do build a lot of bullshit into both types of relationship, and perhaps I often shoot at mono because it's the big established one that (as a construct) often causes so much unnecessary grief...

I'm not sure about what vanilla has to do with this either...

DanBuc wrote:
Har, har
??

Edited 15 Aug 09, 2:23 PM by NaughtyJim

15 Aug 09, 10:37 AM
furry_catgirl
UK(CT), 3 yrs
Caracal wrote:
Lady_Susan wrote:
There were examples of polyamorous, hunter-gatherer societies where men were 'contributory fathers' to a child even if the woman was officially 'married' to a specific man for family alliance reasons; the proportion of contribution depending on how much sex he had with the new mother around the period of conception (the most recent society I read about existed in that form until the 1950's). The society worked as a whole entity, sharing provisions according to their particular cultural structure.

that sounds like heaven to me...

but I wonder if history has been a little re-written.. does polyamourous history forget bisexuality.....??? it existed then too....

i.e., could this kind of polyamoury include, or even be a basis for bisexual love too?? it could have also included gay and lesbian people with ease...

my bi feelings are far more emotional than sexual... could the females have enjoyed each others closeness when they needed support of a different kind??

and maybe men used bi sex as a form of hirerachical system?? or just for the sheer enjoyment...

also the elders... that is another important point... they are such a vital part of life...

and as for mothers, they would never have a 100% burden of child rearing... they had others to share the load with.

childless mothers would have a joint family to raise..

as for d/s.. there would always be leading people, but that would have come with responsibility... those that broke the rules would be no longer welcome...

maybe the leaders were the elders???

another thing.... we say this kinda thing is no longer needed... but these days monogamy is tough, even if both parners work, the chance of having a comfortable, secure life is getting slimmer...

maybe polyamoury could return, but this time for its original use... i.e. basic living needs, and not just sex.

love is everything
love is everywhere
love is all you have sometimes

Edited 15 Aug 09, 11:09 AM by furry_catgirl

15 Aug 09, 12:35 PM
Caracal
UK(SS), 5 yrs



furry_catgirl wrote:
Caracal wrote:

There were examples of polyamorous, hunter-gatherer societies where men were 'contributory fathers' to a child even if the woman was officially 'married' to a specific man for family alliance reasons; the proportion of contribution depending on how much sex he had with the new mother around the period of conception (the most recent society I read about existed in that form until the 1950's). The society worked as a whole entity, sharing provisions according to their particular cultural structure.

that sounds like heaven to me...

but I wonder if history has been a little re-written.. does polyamourous history forget bisexuality.....??? it existed then too....

i.e., could this kind of polyamoury include, or even be a basis for bisexual love too?? it could have also included gay and lesbian people with ease...

my bi feelings are far more emotional than sexual... could the females have enjoyed each others closeness when they needed support of a different kind??

and maybe men used bi sex as a form of hirerachical system?? or just for the sheer enjoyment...

also the elders... that is another important point... they are such a vital part of life...

and as for mothers, they would never have a 100% burden of child rearing... they had others to share the load with.

childless mothers would have a joint family to raise..

as for d/s.. there would always be leading people, but that would have come with responsibility... those that broke the rules would be no longer welcome...

maybe the leaders were the elders???

another thing.... we say this kinda thing is no longer needed... but these days monogamy is tough, even if both parners work, the chance of having a comfortable, secure life is getting slimmer...

maybe polyamoury could return, but this time for its original use... i.e. basic living needs, and not just sex.

Imagine a life where men and women live collectively with their extended marital family for 2 weeks out of four, sharing tasks and responsibilities, looking after those who were less able, having time to play. Then for about two weeks, the men would leave to go to the competitive world of hunting, practicing their spatial skills, teaching the young men how to survive, behave and become a man. The women would remain at the community home, spending time to bond with each other, exchanging skills, gathering food from around the locality, making medicines and teaching the young women about womanhood.

Men went away for the two weeks around the full moon and come back with plenty of food to feed their extended families. They had had time to bond as men, get to challenge each other over their skills and attributes but also to cooperate in acquisition of provisions. Women menstruated synchronously at the full moon, also giving birth at that time and sharing the knowledge and responsibilities of child rearing.

The sexes come back together for the two weeks around the dark moon and the period of ovulation, with plenty of food to keep going during the time of togetherness. Time to make music, sing, dance, create art and of course plenty of sex. A fortnight's holiday every month! Elders were looked after even if they couldn't go out hunting or gathering as they looked after the very young, passing on skills and keeping them safe whilst the other adults were out of the camp.

Imagine an average working day of under 3 hours for both women and men, with simpler needs, fewer possessions, eating a well balanced diet and having an energetic lifestyle where physiologically and psychologically humans are at their healthiest and fittest and strongest.

Two weeks together and two weeks apart, each period giving time to develop quality relationships with their own and the other gender.

So from that pattern, you can see how bisexuality could easily fit in well with that lifestyle. Two weeks spent with our own gender, the potential for plenty of homosexuality because there no fear of getting pregnant by someone other than your designated sexual procreative partner(s).

As for d/s, I'll give that some thought and come back later when the ideas have formulated.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/
The nice lady with the whip.

15 Aug 09, 12:38 PM
Souci_X
UK(BA), 5 yrs

I you actually break it down LIFE is a constant power exchange, employment, education, the law etc etc.

In a poly community it needs a hierarchy, simple really and imo that would develop organically

15 Aug 09, 1:50 PM
Mistress_Avralivia
UK(RG), 4 yrs
£
furry_catgirl wrote:

any ideas????

I only ever hear that we're not meant to couple from 2 types

1. people who's relationship has just failed or is failing,

2. people trying to support their inability to be faithful

In the former its like an excuse that allows you to split with less trauma, in the latter its just bs

It may be true that hominids instinctively are supposed to be in poly groups led by an alpha male, but we haven't relied on instinct since we first evolved 200,000 years ago, its not something endemic to our species, we are no longer animals, well most of us

;)

"You're going to massage me, but first I'm going to bind you"

Edited 15 Aug 09, 1:51 PM by Mistress_Avralivia

15 Aug 09, 2:14 PM
Prunesquallor
UK(RG), 7 yrs
Mistress_Avralivia wrote:

I only ever hear that we're not meant to couple from 2 types

1. people who's relationship has just failed or is failing,

2. people trying to support their inability to be faithful

In the former its like an excuse that allows you to split with less trauma, in the latter its just bs

Do you actually know any polyamorous families?

15 Aug 09, 2:36 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs

Mistress_Avralivia wrote:
furry_catgirl wrote:

any ideas????

I only ever hear that we're not meant to couple from 2 types

1. people who's relationship has just failed or is failing,

2. people trying to support their inability to be faithful

In the former its like an excuse that allows you to split with less trauma, in the latter its just bs

So people who can't/don't mono, are open and honeast about that are bullshit because ... ?

It may be true that hominids instinctively are supposed to be in poly groups led by an alpha male, but we haven't relied on instinct since we first evolved 200,000 years ago

I would say we rely on instinct on an almost continual basis. Fighting instinct is extremely hard.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

15 Aug 09, 3:05 PM
Souci_X
UK(BA), 5 yrs

Prunesquallor wrote:
Mistress_Avralivia wrote:

I only ever hear that we're not meant to couple from 2 types

1. people who's relationship has just failed or is failing,

2. people trying to support their inability to be faithful

In the former its like an excuse that allows you to split with less trauma, in the latter its just bs

Do you actually know any polyamorous families?

Yeah gotta second that question. Here we go Avralivia I have only cheated once in my life (when I was 16 I kissed another boy) and I am not in a failing relationship, indeed I am in a blooming one, and one that has started with both people outlining their poly desires. There we go, now you have heard from someone who doesn't fit into your categories.

15 Aug 09, 3:23 PM
Phoenyx
UK(NW), 4 yrs
I have known 2 triads. As in 2 sperate groups of 3 people that are totally monogamous and equal loving partners to each other but noone else.

1 was thoroughly kinky.

1 was completely vanilla. except there was 3 of them.

I reckon it depends on the people, being more people doesn't inherently mean you are a pervert just because you love more than one person.

'I guess you go too far, when pianos try to be guitars'

15 Aug 09, 4:11 PM
furry_catgirl
UK(CT), 3 yrs
Caracal wrote:

As for d/s, I'll give that some thought and come back later when the ideas have formulated.

actually.... does polyamoury really describe this situation properly??

as polyamoury is a description of the sexual behaviour only..

I think in a poly tribe there would be more work... living outside is hard.. from collecting wood to making clothes, to gathering...

and I think many women in the tribe would hunt too, its in a womans nature as well (some say women are better hunters)

did our dearest relative, bodica live in a similar situation????

love is everything
love is everywhere
love is all you have sometimes

Next page

This is the standard version
©1997-2012 Informed Consent
UK map

UK Map

UK listings
Clubs
Munches
Groups
Dungeon Hire
Services
Kink-friendly
Shops
Other countries
Dictionary
BDSM
Fetish
Top
Bottom
Bondage
Dominant
Submissive
RACK vs SSC
Top Pictures
Rate the pictures

Top BDSM Books
The Story of O
Showing you the Ropes
Female Domination
The Ethical Slut
The Human Pony

More sites
IC's advertisers
BDSM Rights
Kink.com
Kink Podcasts
The Slave Register
Ownership & Possession

Help & About IC