For those who don't practice monogamy (solidgold? etc) How on earth do you not become jealous?

[poshsinglemum]

I am just curious as I am the most jealous insecure person ever and it's a horrid and unattractice trait. Is jealousy natural?

did you enjoy being a mysterious girl?? :o
Have you reported that? Hopefully they'll delete quickly.
In cabbage's defence, she maybe thought using initials was vague enough? Which obviously it's not but ykwim.

it doesn't matter, SPB

it's no secret

but it might have been nice to get a pm asking if that was the case first

the initials were widely used, so no defence, IMO

Yes, very true. And I agree about the initials, but she might not have known that you are that recognisable. But maybe she did!

yes... I would be interested to hear if anyone does have any thoughts on polyamourous identity - would one actually 'come out ' to friends and families ?

What sort of scene is available/could be available to polyamourous (sp ??) women or is it a case of tagging onto existing subcultures?

...talk of outing in general -- yes PA that is very rude.

anyway, she has vanished...

as I should too, apparently my floors aren't self mopping and I have to write an angry letter

SPB, she did

right... movin' on

fir enough
i'd never seen her round before, my god I need to MN more!

PM- you should be blaming Mal- she was the one who laid the clue to your ID- and there are other clues which I won't divulge- but it is very obvious. I didn't know about the unwritten Mn rule about not referring to a previous ID- you were happy enough to tell everyone you were changing!

can't see why you are so touchy- you were happy as I said to draw attention to changing your name in the 1st place.

sorry for the hijack.

she said can't believe people don;t know who you are, it's obvious

Call me naive, but I don't see the clue

Am not blaming anyone

I don't care, tbh

I just don't see why you had to do that, CR, if not maliciously

I have an idea what your previous posting name is, but don't have a need to point-score in that way

Gentle teasing is one thing, between posters who "know" each other

Deliberate outing, without checking first, is another, particularly when there is a background of not much warmth between posters and certainly no "friendly teasing" in a shared history

cabbages does seem to vanish when she has questions to answer

Dear PA

It was not remotely malicicious ( ha- I have just noticed quite a funny pun there.)

Having had 600 people+ post about your name change, which you advertised very blatantly, I did not for a moment think you would care if anyone knew your new ID.

I thought you changed because you didn't like the connotations of the original name- not because you wanted to become "invisible".

I am not blaming Mal as such but she did say she was surprised that people had not tumbled as yo who you were- bit of a give away.

cabbage, please could you respond to the following:

StealthPolarBear Sat 19-Feb-11 17:22:48
cabbage quit with the personal comments please

"I do not feel that establishing their marital status before sleeping with them is my responsibility."
What, exactly does that say about my moral code?

StealthPolarBear Sat 19-Feb-11 17:20:52
"I simply do not know how you can say- presumably in all seriousness??- that any man who approaches you to flirt, snog, have sex, must in fact be single, free, available."

Again, missing the point.
I am saying that that is what he is saying to me
By doing all this, he is saying "I am free and available"
I do not need it spelling out
If he spells it out, he will either be telling the truth or lying.
In the absence of other evidence, I will have no way of telling which
So what does it achieve?

I'm only halfway through the posts that have been made since this morning, and already a few things are bothering me, so I'll list them before I forget...

1/ Someone (sorry, I forget who) labelled SGB as a 'swinger'. Swinging and polyamory are not necessarily the same thing. There are differences. Some swingers are poly, and some poly people are swingers. But it's not the same thing.

2/ Polyamory (although the etymology bothers me somewhat) means 'many loves'. It means that you're capable of loving more than one person at the same time. Deep, proper love. When I was in my non-monogamous relationship, my primary partner and I were deeply in love. I've been in love before that and it was the same. The difference is that the fact that 'love' does not equal 'ownership' is recognised in poly relationships.

3/ "Being monogamous (or, if your prefer, faithful)..."
'Faithful' and 'monogamous' are not synonyms. 'Faithful' is about respecting whatever boundaries are in place, being honest and honouring whatever commitment you have to each other. This is perfectly possible to achieve without being monogamous.

Anyway...

Back to reading the replies. This is a fascinating discussion :)

Okay- final post on this.

Apologies to PM - sorry for the outing- never twigged it was bad form.

Stealth nothing more to add so won't be answering your post- I think I have made my thoughts on this quite clear.

aha

CR...apology accepted

Thanks also for your PM

I think it's pretty bad you're avoiding answering a direct question, and have to ask why, after all the bravado and ridicule

Yes, Toby, you?re right: monogamy and ?being faithful? aren?t the same thing at all ? I was responding to the posters who had turned the discussion into one essentially about ?affairs?, and I wanted to flag that with the reference to faithfulness.
I don?t think your presumption that monogamy=ownership (or at least = failing to understand that love and ownership are not the same thing) and, by implication, that those who live their relationships in other ways have somehow seen the light is very helpful. I don?t feel owned or the owner of my partner, and I don?t think that?s just pending my enlightenment.

Stealth I am not avoidog answering you really- whatever I say will simply repeat my previous posts. With respect, it is you who is missing he point. The behaviour you describe may say a man is available but it does not mean he free. The two do not go hand in hand!

As has already been pointed out by other people, no one is condemning a woman who is duped by a man who lies; we are saying that you should try to clarify a person's status.

If you simply believe that flirting and more show "availability"- meaning a man is not committed elsewhere, then you have obviously not met many men who do flirt, want a fling or whatever- and are committed.

I hope this answers whatever the question was as that's all I am saying on it.

"If you simply believe that flirting and more show "availability"- meaning a man is not committed elsewhere, then you have obviously not met many men who do flirt"

No, I'm saying that that is what they are telling me through their actions. Spoken words are only one aspect. You are obviously deciding to bow out of this so I will stop asking. It is very frustrating when someone repeatedly misses your point.

Glad you have stopped patronising though. Reliance on "you'll understand when you're a bit older" rarely makes for a valid argument IME.