Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

criteria

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by ChitownMaverick View Post
    When you say open relationship, of course, you are displaying exactly the "M/w" you are accusing me of having.
    How so?

    It still implies that some girls are not built for monogamy and others are.
    No it doesn't. It implies that no girl is.

    I'm not going to get monogamous with anyone, but asserting that some are not better suited for it than others is insane.
    So you're asserting that some ARE better suited for monogamy than others? Well, maybe in the short term, but not the long-term.

    Comment


    • #47
      What the anti-slut shaming brigade is crying about is guys refusing to be monogamous with promiscuous women. We live in a mono-normative world where people say "serious committed relationship" and mean "sexually exclusive." You know that.

      They aren't talking about poly arrangements, which is the minority (superficially). Most people are not monogamous but call it that anyway, as you also know.

      Hence, by encouraging guys not to mono-up promiscuous women, you are doing exactly what the anti-slut shamers are complaining about.

      Let's just be honest about it. We're not actually shaming anyone, but we are definitely doing something they would see reason to call slut shaming. We all are.

      Comment


      • #48
        ^ #circles - We can all agree that our lifestyles are the exception to the rule and thus conventional thinking does not apply to us...

        Comment


        • #49
          In my observation, a few, a verrrrrrrrry few people are suited for monogamy. Like maybe 1%. They really are. The rest of us shouldn't be shoehorned into a badly fitting shoe, like Cinderella's sisters cutting off their toes. Then the next question after that is, when a woman is nonmonogamous, is she honest about it? Of course we strongly prefer honesty. In my own dealings, it's a requirement. After that, we ask, is she discreet about her nonmonogamy? A lot of us prefer if she's discreet. For whatever reason. Maybe the guy who doesn't like girls "throwing themselves at men" is making a statement about the fact that those girls perhaps are failing to use their social intelligence, their common sense. ???

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Present View Post
            Maybe the guy who doesn't like girls "throwing themselves at men" is making a statement about the fact that those girls perhaps are failing to use their social intelligence, their common sense. ???
            Absolutely - which is why such women need to screen for lover not provider types i.e. men who have no reason to judge her sexuality

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Daigoro View Post
              present,

              To cut to the chase: I don't think this kind of direct approach is an optimal strategy for you. It could become a tool in your arsenal, but would still require some form of screening or prior intel about the guys experience/sexual openness.

              Some of the likely preconditions in which such a direct proposition would be both welcome and not subject to misinterpretation (i.e. strings-attached, leading to monogamy, etc.) are:

              1. you're already fucking him
              2. the guy is sexually experienced and confident enough not to have his manhood challenged
              3. the guy has no reason to suspect you of ulterior motives
              4. attraction is mutual

              I honestly think attraction is the least important factor. Doesn't matter if she's a 10 or a 7, as long as minimum fuckability standard protocols are in place. Confidence/experience/openness are far more important.

              I feel like the guys who are saying, "Yeah, I'd love to be propositioned," are not calibrating their responses to your purpose. Your question to the forum should not be, "Would this approach work on you?" because we can always imagine a scenario or a woman for whom this would work or has worked, but rather, "How can I implement this strategy most effectively?" One deficiency I can see is that this sort of ultimatum can force the man into a kind of either/or panic situation. "Is this chick for real or am I gonna look stupid?" or "Oh shit! I'm not ready but it's now or never!"

              Yes, in theory, every male wishes they had an abundant, unencumbered supply of sex. But I would say the vast majority of men outside of the community are simply not self-possessed enough to be fluid in their sexual receptivity like this. It deprives them of the aphrodisiac of their own (imagined) agency and CAN imply a lack of congruence/calibration on the woman's part. It's like someone offering you money on the street: suspicious. So, as a point-blank, cold-open gambit: out.

              What you are really looking for is a way to directly signal sexual interest/intent but IN A WAY THAT ENCOURAGES THE MAN TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. You are focusing on the proposition itself as the crucial gambit, but don't forget to consider the back-end. In addition to screening, it is probably best to also prepare/escalate things by suggesting your desired outcome. Some subtle, sexy things that girls have done with me, even when I was clueless, were to simply tell me how horny they are, how long they've been without a man, or suggest going back to hers because "it's quiet."

              Similarly, with new guys, we like to hammer home the importance of having your logistics LOCKED DOWN whenever there's even the remotest possibility of sex. No borrowing money from a friend, scrambling for a place to fuck, stopping to buy condoms. The back end of the seduction always carries unexpected spoiler potential, so the more you can progress the interaction to something comfortable and familiar for the guy, the greater your chances of success.

              I have more to add but I want to see if this is on target with your intention.

              Some issues I see for you seem to be rooted in polarized thinking when it comes to relationship dynamics. I'm reading this vis a vis your question about whether women can be both aggressive and submissive and also your query about "changing" a man from beta to alpha. I've found it more the rule than the exception that aggressive women strongly desire to submit to a dominant male, and subsequently grow increasingly frustrated in their quest to find an adequate partner.

              On the flip-side, while men can groom their women for greater femininity/receptivity through the mechanism of sexual dominance, it is almost impossible for a woman to help a man "Man up," because both emotional and sexual motivation tend to work on only beta males. The alpha transformation must ultimately coincide with a man's aloof PURPOSE and SELF-SUFFICIENCY. It's like the conundrum of med school dating or Officer and a Gentleman. Once the girls from the neighborhood help get the candidates through their ordeal, the guys don't need them anymore and move on to greener pastures!
              I can hardly even envision a guy suspecting me of ulterior motives. Weird. Maybe I'm naive, but what could I possibly want from a guy other than fun and sex? I dunno, maybe once a person meets me it becomes obvious that I am not looking for a provider. Is that the ulterior motive you're referring to? Or are there other possibilities? I mean, the idea of propositioning a guy just to say, "gotcha! You're a sucker! You really believed that?" is so far beneath my dignity. . . But maybe it's something that club-going twenty-year-old girls actually do? It's good to have an idea of what some far-off stranger might think. Or of how a twenty-six-year-old man (not you. . . not a potential lover of mine) might think.

              Now this really struck me: "Some subtle, sexy things that girls have done with me, even when I was clueless, were to simply tell me how horny they are, how long they've been without a man. . ." I have never said either of those things because I would NOT have thought that they were subtle at all, plus I would have THOUGHT that they would make me look like a loser. How in heaven's name did a girl manage to say those things to you without lowering her own social value in your eyes? Maybe if she included "I'm so very picky, they keep propositioning me but they're all worthless. . . " But I wouldn't like to say that lots of men are worthless. It's not true or nice. Did she frame it like, "I've been holding out for a man like you?" There, now there's a line I could see myself saying.

              Comment


              • #52
                @Present:
                In my observation, a few, a verrrrrrrrry few people are suited for monogamy. Like maybe 1%.
                I agree. Putting on my Undocumented Anthropologist hat...

                Our closest relatives are Chimps and Bonobos, formerly called the Pigmy Chimp, non experts would look at a Bonobo and call it a Chimp. Among Chimps the dominant males fuck all the females whether they like it or not. Bonobos all fuck everyone in the troop all the time, but it is consensual, and if a male were to force himself on a female, the other females would beat the crap out of him so that doesn't happen very often.

                My belief is that during pre agriculture, we lived in clans of 100 - 150 people. The mating structure was that females would become involved with one warrior at a time, they'd be infatuated, have lots of mad sex and eventually she'd become pregnant. Then she'd live with him and have her child and raise it until it was done nursing and could join the child pack and begin doing useful work. 3 year olds are capable of doing many useful tasks. We had my daughter picking berries at age 20 months. A little experimenting taught her that the blue ones tasted great and the green ones were yucky, and although a lot of berries went into her mouth, she had a cup of berries by the time the women were done picking and she had learned a useful skill. 5 year olds climb trees like little monkeys and can get at food adults are too heavy to reach. So, child care is not an issue after they can talk. Herds of kids accommodate the little ones readily and the older kids would watch out for and teach the little ones and one or two women would watch the kids and put them to work, leaving the other women free of primary care. At that point, she is free to become infatuated with a different warrior and repeat the process, having a child every 4 years or so.

                Because men live a much more dangerous life, there are several women for each man and with rotation most of the Warriors will have a sexual relationship with most of the women in a clan and vice versa. Each warrior would have his own tent or hut and the women and their children would sleep and shelter from bad weather there. Likely a warrior's mom and maybe her sister or best friend would live there too. If a warrior died, his brothers would take in the women. This is the way women are provided for in traditional polygynous societies today.

                Life was good for the alpha males who lived. Betas didn't make it because hunting and fighting enemies with pointed sticks is a lifestyle for the tough, and didn't reproduce often because women prefer high status alpha males capable of protecting the clan and providing meat. Betas don't make them wet, and in that setting have nothing to offer.

                Then we learned farming and and the old way became obsolete. Betas make better farmers and could survive, but they needed alphas as protectors from other alphas and the alphas became soldiers and the toughest ones became the rulers and they had harems while farmers had extended families and monogamy. Eventually this gave way to a more urban life and de facto monogamy became the norm except for the alphas who were still high status and had virtual harems.

                So, what the above created was a creature that evolved to be polygamous for at least a million years and maybe 5 million years back to the common ancestor of us and the chimps, and for all that time those best suited to polygamy got the most copies of their genes in the pool. Then we became farmers and city dwellers, and being suited to monogamy became a trait that made you more likely to place your genes in the next generation, so those traits that made you adapted to monogamy were selected for. And the alphas were always with us, fucking lots of women, and the women who loved them made sure that both sexes kept their polygamy genes in the pool. What we end up with from all that is a creature that can do both. The culture pushes monogamy and we do it because most people are sheep who go where the flock goes and we are somewhat adapted to it. But the monogamy adaptations are only a few hundred generations old, and the old polygamy adaptations go back a thousand times further and are much stronger. Now that the social and religious constraints that harshly enforced monogamy have mostly been lifted, we are going back to our instinctive mating patterns.
                The older the violin, the sweeter the music. Augustus McCrae

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Present View Post
                  Then the next question after that is, when a woman is nonmonogamous, is she honest about it?
                  I get emails from women on a semi-regular basis asking how they can create/maintain open relationships like us guys do. There really are no easy answers for women in this situation. Men are more needy and far more sexually territorial than women. It's easy for a man to have open relationships once he's seen the light of Alpha 2.0, because women are largely cool with it, or learn to be cool with it very quickly. But beta males and Needy Alphas go into meltdown mode if they get even one tiny wiff of "their" woman getting sexual with other men, and it's very difficult to ween them off the habit.

                  Women trying to create their own FB/MLTR/OLTR relationships really fight an uphill battle because of this. One of my closest friends (female) is dealing with this right now and it's rough. All the usual frames and techniques that tend to work great when you're a man dealing with women often fall flat when you're a woman dealing with men.
                  How to have 3 hour meet-to-lays and nonmonogamous relationships with any type of woman:
                  The Blackdragon Blog

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Blackdragon View Post
                    I get emails from women on a semi-regular basis asking how they can create/maintain open relationships like us guys do. There really are no easy answers for women in this situation. Men are more needy and far more sexually territorial than women. It's easy for a man to have open relationships once he's seen the light of Alpha 2.0, because women are largely cool with it, or learn to be cool with it very quickly. But beta males and Needy Alphas go into meltdown mode if they get even one tiny wiff of "their" woman getting sexual with other men, and it's very difficult to ween them off the habit.

                    Women trying to create their own FB/MLTR/OLTR relationships really fight an uphill battle because of this. One of my closest friends (female) is dealing with this right now and it's rough. All the usual frames and techniques that tend to work great when you're a man dealing with women often fall flat when you're a woman dealing with men.
                    Bullshit. There's a reason "The Ethical Slut" was such a popular book. There are plenty of women out there practicing open, honest polyamory and maintaining open relationships with guys. Some do solo polyamory for a while until they find, join or create a "family."

                    If you want to have a poly lifestyle, find people that are either poly or open to learning about it. Bam, problem solved. I have no doubt that women in your example are trying to create poly relationships with monogamous guys, which is the reason it's not working out. Nothing to do with "frames and techniques," it's called not being compatible at a fundamental level.

                    If the guys are getting upset over "teeny tiny whiffs" of whatever, agree on a don't-ask-don't-tell policy, then don't bring it up around him.. Again, problem solved.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by ChitownMaverick View Post
                      Bullshit. There's a reason "The Ethical Slut" was such a popular book. There are plenty of women out there practicing open, honest polyamory and maintaining open relationships with guys.
                      I didn't say there wasn't. I said lots of women, starting from complete scratch, have lots of trouble creating these relationships in the first place. More so than men when they start from scratch.

                      I have no doubt that women in your example are trying to create poly relationships with monogamous guys, which is the reason it's not working out.
                      Actually, most women I know who have an open relationship have it with a guy who started out as a mono-BF or mono-husband. Eventually the woman put her foot down and the submissive beta guy (often also a low-sex-drive guy) relented.

                      But no, I'm talking about women who right now have no BF and are looking to create some FBs/MTLRs.

                      If the guys are getting upset over "teeny tiny whiffs" of whatever, agree on a don't-ask-don't-tell policy, then don't bring it up around him.. Again, problem solved.
                      Yeah right.

                      A girl says, "I'm going to fuck other guys, but I just won't tell you, okay? And you agree to never ask me, okay?"

                      As if a man is going to reply, "Oh, okay."
                      How to have 3 hour meet-to-lays and nonmonogamous relationships with any type of woman:
                      The Blackdragon Blog

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I had a nice open relationship for several months with a monogamous guy. I set the frame extra-clearly at the start, with all the Sex at Dawn info that I had at my disposal, and made it ultra-clear that it was great if he laid other women, as long as I was in control of my own health (i.e, we would use condoms and never drop them unless we agreed to a non-condom exclusivity after testing. . . ). At a certain point, he couldn't handle it any more. He never was willing to discuss his jealousy, tho' I gave him openings. Therefore we couldn't negotiate any solutions. So he ended it, and we are still friends. I'm glad I had the hot time with him romantically, and the fascinating time conversationally, that I did. However, I have made a point since then to date men who are already poly. I'm not saying that I would never try the same experiment again, but I'm certainly not seeking it.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Present View Post
                          Now this really struck me: "Some subtle, sexy things that girls have done with me, even when I was clueless, were to simply tell me how horny they are, how long they've been without a man. . ." I have never said either of those things because I would NOT have thought that they were subtle at all, plus I would have THOUGHT that they would make me look like a loser. How in heaven's name did a girl manage to say those things to you without lowering her own social value in your eyes? Maybe if she included "I'm so very picky, they keep propositioning me but they're all worthless. . . " But I wouldn't like to say that lots of men are worthless. It's not true or nice. Did she frame it like, "I've been holding out for a man like you?" There, now there's a line I could see myself saying.
                          Use the nexting frame, and have fun with the guy when he is cool. A guy worth his salt can alpha up, a guy that isn't will fall off the grid or get screened out.
                          The only exception to nexting is when the guy is truly badass and struggling, then you need to tone it back for him, and up the intensity of screening on other men, to help him get back into his alpha state. But never do that TOO much, (the reason for this exception is because all men, even the best of us will struggle with this sometimes, so you do need the ability to see when a guys original power is diminished and ease the balance in his favor a little, so he can make some ground back)

                          What you say in the quote above is interesting, and my response is... Subtle is by how she projects her voice, how she keeps composed, and says only a few things and leaves it at that. Certainly the girl might feel as if she is intruding on his space if she is doing this mechanically, but when in a flow, and kinda in the mood with him, it is seen as subtle because its not "jerky". We don't care about subtle as in "well at least she didnt verbalise wanting sex" we care about it in "at least she didn't act all haughty and self shaming, then yell it at us, with her frustrated actions".

                          You have to think about the bubble of privacy you create when you speak, if its just you two, everything is subtle, if its like you are yelling and performing to an invisible crowd, then its totally overt.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Present View Post
                            Curious about something:

                            Say a lady is DTF and maybe an HB8 or so. If she invites you, without any fun flirtation and heat-building, does that work for you? Or do you want to be seduced with escalation and playfulness? Notice I am not talking about an HB10 where you'd basically do her in a pigsty, nor about a 3-4-5 where you might not want to do her at all. I'm talking about someone sane and interesting who theoretically has potential to be an FB or MLTR. Does her behavior influence your feeling of attraction or not?
                            Now there are two ways to turn a guy on
                            a) Need for relief (your classic loving girl ploy, or your clevage and being suggestive ploy TOTH)
                            b) Make him comfortable with whats going down, by getting him away from all his catch 22s and such (POS)

                            These are not GUYS, they are two sides of a guy, in which some guys inhabit one moree than the other depending on who he is and how you two get along.

                            The first option gives you guys that don't last long, are more awkward, don't cum, or wanna just stay back and spank off later instead of fuck you.
                            The second option has him be more spontaneous, and the result will be dependant on the kind of guy you picked (its important to pick dudes not on needs you feel because its a bad indicator for good sex)

                            To make a guy comfortable with sexuality, you just have to spend a few silent moments with him where you "hold" the idea in the air in a way that makes him stop and slow down (if he's thinking fast, thats bad, he'll commit to other random shit).
                            Don't "fake" a smile (or get uptight) as guys take that to mean you don't actually have time for him (like people in business usher you on with smiles, thank you come again). Don't get "heavy" over him either. To express sexuality you have to be much more deft, and avoid pressure and expression of difficulty or internal imbalance.

                            We do like chicks just straight up, without flirting. BUT the only way to unlock that with us is to introduce it to us slowly and without any condecension. We will go into a kind of hypnotic state.


                            I actually saw a girl do this a while ago. She was in the club and walking past I felt that her energy was really open, almost grabbing me. Anyways, I walk off and try to get a look at her from a distance like "wtf is this girl doing?". She was out to get a guy obviously, but she didn't do it like normal, she met some dude, and for some reason he just kinda stopped, and followed with her a bit, and later she took his hand and left with him.
                            You don't see that often.
                            Fuck it, you never see that. Was she good? No, not really, she was a semi natural/natural woman. She could get sex, but could she squeeze the situations to be better? Could she notice that I was really good at this stuff and was observing her? No.


                            A girls behaviour does affect our attraction. Absolutely, and not only that, girls are rarely ever truly 9's or 10's, its usually just some brain mistake, and they average back down to an 8 eventually.
                            So in most attractive girls being 8's or 7's, you have to understand that the playing field is even when it comes to looks after all random and weird variations subside.
                            You NEED to be imposing on men, but you don't want it to be BOLD or IGNORANT. You should talk straight to what you want, but to do that requires skill. (refer to my post above)

                            Adding onto that, girls dressing UP too much, actually lowers our likelyhood of taking her seriously as an option at night (unless she makes it clear that doesn't matter). We assume that bitchy looking girls will give us drama, or act stiff.
                            Drama free and fluid girls definately get us in the mood, especially if she is 7 to 8, given that she has our attention and our imagination of what the night can be, without any cheap tricks (cheap tricks they dont work on guys with a clue, and the way they work on some guys is not really worth it when the end result is considered).

                            The kind of behaviour that affects us is vibe, scenario, and what part of us you are accessing and in what manner you are doing so.

                            ~~~

                            In most situations AVERAGE guys will auto reject themselves from an 8. Why? Anxiety.
                            They don't assume that your interest is sexual, and that will make communicating really tough (you gotta help him see that your attention and interest is sensual, otherwise he's gonna anxiously avoid shit).
                            They will resist getting with you because they don't want to "assume" or be seen assuming you like them(assuming its sexual), because they think it will blow the "picture" they have of what success is supposed to look like(never assume its sexual, and play coy until you've got to the destination).

                            ...

                            Deadpan can totally work, just need the right context (pos). Guys need to be actively involved, and in spite of them raving on about how girls should do stuff the truth is that we really do need to motivate ourselves. And the best way is through instinct rather than "thinking" about what we should be doing.

                            Guys aren't as about sex as you might think. However, never mistake that to mean that you can't ACCESS that POS side of us at any time and in a short period of time 5 mins or so.
                            We generally, are about not being powerless (toth). Sex is a symptom of doing things right. But it has to be honest for us to get that kick. But personally, thats appealing to our NEEDS, not what we can be comfortable with.

                            Deep inside every guy is the ability to just chill out and pace out the space with you. And in that space he is very receptive to being turned on by touch, scent, pace of movement, proximity, and gentle persuasion.
                            Don't ego wrestle him there, you have to be chill yourself.

                            When he is there, he may just touch you, or stroke your hand back. And just take it slow at first, and bind some part of him tight to turn him on. Like his shirt or pull his belt to you.

                            ...

                            But to get him as a FB, this might not do unless he feels good about talking to you after (not ashamed).
                            We can sometimes freak out after sex. And what that means is, we feel like we "used" the situation just for the opportunity to get laid, and lead the chick on falsely regarding our "real"(in our mind/bullshit) plans. (toth will lead to freak outs, so don't feed his ego, build his inner pos strength).

                            To make a guy feel there is value in coming back, it is best to not just do it at the pool, or on the beach or where ever, unless he's kinda into having a fling with you anyways. To get him a bit more set, you have to avoid him giving you the "nod and a yes", that nod and a yes thing is almost certainly leading to him fucking off after.
                            He's gotta have time to process what is happening, but not so much that he'll flip out and run off, and that time can't be during times he is freaking out about getting caught or it not happening. (invite him for dinner, cook, have wine, give him a kiss at some point, just a light one, and then chill out talking by the heater, and slowly pull him in, whilst being cool with letting him go).

                            To be a good chick for FBs, with a guy that knows shit all, you really need to get him to actually comprehend what is ahead, so he can stomach it properly, and then walk ahead with you.
                            Or you can do it by having a discreet non veral understanding of each other.



                            Anyways, you can't get "that one guy" (100% result is rediculous, maybe 10%-30% will convert when you are really good) to get through that just right, you've got to know that you might lose him somewhere along that line. Which is why you MUST learn to enjoy your side of it!!!

                            Thing is, the flirting and stuff comes naturally when you are just "good being you", and derive pleasure from your own being and spontanaity.

                            My tip is, don't look at flirting as a means to an end, and don't look at propositions as not being capable of subtlety and choice and freedoms. These things are about expressing the good feelings inside of us much better.
                            You CAN theoretically attract a guy just on looks and just have him say yes, but the truth is that our minds get in the way, and it ends up being VERY AVERAGE.


                            As a woman, pursuing a man will be distasteful, however, you need to do it with the right men(screen and qualify), and also you need to learn how to apply effort without getting bitter or angry towards men (use nexting and such to establish a good enough life that the bullshit doesn't matter as much. Allowing you to focus on doing things better rather than moping about with tangled BS nonsense).



                            Either way, you wanna screen guys properly and qualify them to do some of their share of "being cool" and "getting stuff".
                            You also, if you have the game to do it, should verbally prepare him a bit by getting rid of his random stupid objections to women giving him free sex :P.

                            The White knight objection is probably the most viscious and prevalent, and is actually created and furthered by telling men what to do (so never tell them what to do)
                            (this is probably the gayest thing, but dudes object against girls saying sexual stuff, because they want to impress her with white knight shit... pfff)

                            You can disarm stuff like this by "liberating him", by saying things like "i like it when a guy knows how to ravish a woman, instead of assuming women never have the desire to live, and experience their full range as a woman". Now that might still be too much, but basically, white knight shit is like our version of ASD.

                            The next on I can think of is getting sex into his mind, or getting him comfy talking it (generally men don't know how effortless and non stupid it can be)
                            "Most guys don't admit that they like sex, because they can't get to a place with a woman where it is just natural and where it can, just be enjoyed"
                            You can stirr his curiousity if you do it right.


                            Don't pay attention to what guys say. Get to the pos guy within and talk it right.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Present View Post
                              I had a nice open relationship for several months with a monogamous guy. I set the frame extra-clearly at the start, with all the Sex at Dawn info that I had at my disposal, and made it ultra-clear that it was great if he laid other women, as long as I was in control of my own health (i.e, we would use condoms and never drop them unless we agreed to a non-condom exclusivity after testing. . . ). At a certain point, he couldn't handle it any more. He never was willing to discuss his jealousy, tho' I gave him openings. Therefore we couldn't negotiate any solutions. So he ended it, and we are still friends. I'm glad I had the hot time with him romantically, and the fascinating time conversationally, that I did. However, I have made a point since then to date men who are already poly. I'm not saying that I would never try the same experiment again, but I'm certainly not seeking it.
                              You can't talk out jealousy.

                              Jealousy comes from our power being either diminished or not having any to start with. He was the later.
                              I've gotten jealous recently, and as weird as that might be, there just ARE triggers, no matter how good you get.
                              No formal arrangement treats or addresses the actual triggers, and so is BS.

                              What it relies on is
                              a) Type of attraction
                              b) Way you two are connected
                              c) The level of familiarity with each other

                              The attraction type needs to be POS otherwise he will get possessive.
                              The way you two connect cannot be "arranged" logically, you should not be engaging him so directly, as it gets a guy out of his sexually capable side.
                              The level of familiarity can't be so high that he "thinks he knows you" and negates his awe of you.

                              If hes POS, sexually capable, and in awe of you, you can manage the nexting behaviours and schedule so that you can have an MLTR.
                              But you have to be gooooooood at this shit, before you can do that. There is no magic pill that will get you running mltrs well, just cuz you are a girl.
                              Mltrs require abundance, and right now, you are in scarcity.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Blackdragon View Post
                                But no, I'm talking about women who right now have no BF and are looking to create some FBs/MTLRs.
                                My experience is quite different. I know women who have all kinds of stories about how they got into poly relationships. The most pertinent example is a cute as hell little mid twenties girl, but then I am partial, type 3 you know, she is probably not that hot by big city standards. She has twice in the last year moved into an entirely new city, one in a new country. With social circle and online she quickly fills her time with interesting lovers. She screens for partners who are open or poly. The communities she runs in are often close to the GLBT or friendly to them. She has some eye rolling stories but for the most part it just has not been that tough. She is extremely open about what she is doing.

                                She has much less trouble finding and keeping relationships than several of the monogamy hungry women I know. I mean seriously, a woman who is reasonably attractive, articulate, and interesting just meets up, feels the guy out to see if he is open minded at all, lays it out on the line, take it or leave it. There you go. If he gives her drama, well you know the cure for that right?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X