Anonymous wrote:
Oh I disagree. I live 5 min from one of the largest swingers havens in the nation (scarlet ranch in Littleton Colorado). “The lifestyle” is very common and very open here. It’s a very wealthy area and they are not the “fugly” type at all- they’re heavily injected and implanted and in great shape because they have trainers and money. I’m not from here and found it all shocking as I didn’t know it was such a huge thing! Never thought of myself as naive. But I was.

ah yes, the ranch. My wife and I have been there and plenty of mid range to very beautiful people roamed around. It only took an hour before we were both face deep in someone else’s love triangle.

I was surprised by the quantity and quality of people that were there.

Good times!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polyamory has become just like CrossFit was a few years ago: 1. Nothing wrong with it if it works for you, many dig it; 2. Carries inherent risks that make it a bad fit for most people; 3. Practitioners cannot stop talking about it.

It seems to me that you vanilla types can’t stop talking about it, either

Ha! Who said I was vanilla? You shouldn’t presume. Heh

Oh, please. If you weren’t a Suzy Homemaker type you wouldn’t be making digs at it.

Polyamorous people can be pretty--even painfully--vanilla, notwithstanding the non-monogamy. And plenty of monogamous people are very unvanilla (whatever the opposite of vanilla is). Making digs at how painfully awkward a lot of poly people doesn't mean that PP is vanilla.

A part of the appeal of polyamory is that frumpy HR klatch types in librarian glasses can feel like they are “kinky” and “trangressive”, even when they have reduced sex and love to something as joyless as following the byzantine rules of the world’s most unpleasant board game. This is why it attracts nerds and the neurodivergent in droves.

This is all very true. I was in poly world for about two years. It was too long.

The exciting sex was rare. The drama was nonstop.

It is basically pretty boring at heart.

Because “they” want to keep brainwashing the public into thinking everything and anything is ok! It’s an assault on family and traditional values. If families are intact they are strong. Divide and conquer technique from the progressives who want to own your mind and soul.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polyamory has become just like CrossFit was a few years ago: 1. Nothing wrong with it if it works for you, many dig it; 2. Carries inherent risks that make it a bad fit for most people; 3. Practitioners cannot stop talking about it.

It seems to me that you vanilla types can’t stop talking about it, either

Ha! Who said I was vanilla? You shouldn’t presume. Heh

Oh, please. If you weren’t a Suzy Homemaker type you wouldn’t be making digs at it.

Polyamorous people can be pretty--even painfully--vanilla, notwithstanding the non-monogamy. And plenty of monogamous people are very unvanilla (whatever the opposite of vanilla is). Making digs at how painfully awkward a lot of poly people doesn't mean that PP is vanilla.

A part of the appeal of polyamory is that frumpy HR klatch types in librarian glasses can feel like they are “kinky” and “trangressive”, even when they have reduced sex and love to something as joyless as following the byzantine rules of the world’s most unpleasant board game. This is why it attracts nerds and the neurodivergent in droves.

This is all very true. I was in poly world for about two years. It was too long.

The exciting sex was rare. The drama was nonstop.

What was the drama about? And why did you demean yourself so much to get into poly?

Anonymous wrote:Because guys like to read about it.

No. It is being pushed in magazines and online sites that women read. The articles are published by women for women. The general consensus among men is that this is nothing more than your wife/gf cheating on you because is basically becomes a woman with many men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polyamory has become just like CrossFit was a few years ago: 1. Nothing wrong with it if it works for you, many dig it; 2. Carries inherent risks that make it a bad fit for most people; 3. Practitioners cannot stop talking about it.

It seems to me that you vanilla types can’t stop talking about it, either

Ha! Who said I was vanilla? You shouldn’t presume. Heh

Oh, please. If you weren’t a Suzy Homemaker type you wouldn’t be making digs at it.

Polyamorous people can be pretty--even painfully--vanilla, notwithstanding the non-monogamy. And plenty of monogamous people are very unvanilla (whatever the opposite of vanilla is). Making digs at how painfully awkward a lot of poly people doesn't mean that PP is vanilla.

A part of the appeal of polyamory is that frumpy HR klatch types in librarian glasses can feel like they are “kinky” and “trangressive”, even when they have reduced sex and love to something as joyless as following the byzantine rules of the world’s most unpleasant board game. This is why it attracts nerds and the neurodivergent in droves.

This is all very true. I was in poly world for about two years. It was too long.

The exciting sex was rare. The drama was nonstop.

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many “mainstream” publications pushing polyamory suddenly?

NP. I haven’t seen as big a gap between journalists and your average mainstream consumer of journalism in my life. There is a serious disconnect that is profound between the writers and the readers. This has been growing for some time but became glaringly obvious in the wake of the 2016 election when it was clear how many journalists were literally unable to comprehend a Trump victory (which was entirely predictable to anyone who actually talked to swing state voters in summer 2016).

The disconnect has gotten worse, not better, since then. I’m not sure if it’s the weakening of journalism schools, the lack of money due to the death of print journalism, a demographic shift in writers, or what. But it is real and it’s leading to increasing nonsense. Of course polyamory isn’t becoming very common; as a practical matter, many people can barely manage one spouse let alone multiple. It might be the next step in relationships for that subset of adults who still divide their world by D&D alignment and therefore like the gaming-rules-based relationships that are modern polyamory, but for most people, when they are adults they don’t spend time deciding whether a new person is a paladin or rogue at heart and therefore what relational rules apply.

I do think it’s hilarious that people have rebranded “having roommates” to “part of an asexual polycule.” It almost feels like trolling and I’m here for it.

Pussy sells. And multiple
Pussies sell even better

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polyamory has become just like CrossFit was a few years ago: 1. Nothing wrong with it if it works for you, many dig it; 2. Carries inherent risks that make it a bad fit for most people; 3. Practitioners cannot stop talking about it.

It seems to me that you vanilla types can’t stop talking about it, either

Ha! Who said I was vanilla? You shouldn’t presume. Heh

Oh, please. If you weren’t a Suzy Homemaker type you wouldn’t be making digs at it.

Polyamorous people can be pretty--even painfully--vanilla, notwithstanding the non-monogamy. And plenty of monogamous people are very unvanilla (whatever the opposite of vanilla is). Making digs at how painfully awkward a lot of poly people doesn't mean that PP is vanilla.

A part of the appeal of polyamory is that frumpy HR klatch types in librarian glasses can feel like they are “kinky” and “trangressive”, even when they have reduced sex and love to something as joyless as following the byzantine rules of the world’s most unpleasant board game. This is why it attracts nerds and the neurodivergent in droves.

Oh I disagree. I live 5 min from one of the largest swingers havens in the nation (scarlet ranch in Littleton Colorado). “The lifestyle” is very common and very open here. It’s a very wealthy area and they are not the “fugly” type at all- they’re heavily injected and implanted and in great shape because they have trainers and money. I’m not from here and found it all shocking as I didn’t know it was such a huge thing! Never thought of myself as naive. But I was.

Ok, if true, that’s like the 1% of the 1%.

Curious how these beautiful, in shape and wealthy polycules are never the authors or subjects of these salacious news articles. It would really be a Man Bites Dog tale. And yet somehow, the periodicals can only find the schoolmarms and neckbeards to feature every single time. Huh. Go figure!

Oh sorry, I didn’t notice you said swingers. Which is a totally different thing from polyamory, apparently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polyamory has become just like CrossFit was a few years ago: 1. Nothing wrong with it if it works for you, many dig it; 2. Carries inherent risks that make it a bad fit for most people; 3. Practitioners cannot stop talking about it.

It seems to me that you vanilla types can’t stop talking about it, either

Ha! Who said I was vanilla? You shouldn’t presume. Heh

Oh, please. If you weren’t a Suzy Homemaker type you wouldn’t be making digs at it.

Polyamorous people can be pretty--even painfully--vanilla, notwithstanding the non-monogamy. And plenty of monogamous people are very unvanilla (whatever the opposite of vanilla is). Making digs at how painfully awkward a lot of poly people doesn't mean that PP is vanilla.

A part of the appeal of polyamory is that frumpy HR klatch types in librarian glasses can feel like they are “kinky” and “trangressive”, even when they have reduced sex and love to something as joyless as following the byzantine rules of the world’s most unpleasant board game. This is why it attracts nerds and the neurodivergent in droves.

Oh I disagree. I live 5 min from one of the largest swingers havens in the nation (scarlet ranch in Littleton Colorado). “The lifestyle” is very common and very open here. It’s a very wealthy area and they are not the “fugly” type at all- they’re heavily injected and implanted and in great shape because they have trainers and money. I’m not from here and found it all shocking as I didn’t know it was such a huge thing! Never thought of myself as naive. But I was.

Ok, if true, that’s like the 1% of the 1%.

Curious how these beautiful, in shape and wealthy polycules are never the authors or subjects of these salacious news articles. It would really be a Man Bites Dog tale. And yet somehow, the periodicals can only find the schoolmarms and neckbeards to feature every single time. Huh. Go figure!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polyamory has become just like CrossFit was a few years ago: 1. Nothing wrong with it if it works for you, many dig it; 2. Carries inherent risks that make it a bad fit for most people; 3. Practitioners cannot stop talking about it.

It seems to me that you vanilla types can’t stop talking about it, either

Ha! Who said I was vanilla? You shouldn’t presume. Heh

Oh, please. If you weren’t a Suzy Homemaker type you wouldn’t be making digs at it.

Polyamorous people can be pretty--even painfully--vanilla, notwithstanding the non-monogamy. And plenty of monogamous people are very unvanilla (whatever the opposite of vanilla is). Making digs at how painfully awkward a lot of poly people doesn't mean that PP is vanilla.

A part of the appeal of polyamory is that frumpy HR klatch types in librarian glasses can feel like they are “kinky” and “trangressive”, even when they have reduced sex and love to something as joyless as following the byzantine rules of the world’s most unpleasant board game. This is why it attracts nerds and the neurodivergent in droves.

Oh I disagree. I live 5 min from one of the largest swingers havens in the nation (scarlet ranch in Littleton Colorado). “The lifestyle” is very common and very open here. It’s a very wealthy area and they are not the “fugly” type at all- they’re heavily injected and implanted and in great shape because they have trainers and money. I’m not from here and found it all shocking as I didn’t know it was such a huge thing! Never thought of myself as naive. But I was.

Honestly, I have never met anyone that has publicly been in an a polyamory situation, let alone any type of "big push"

I guess I'm hanging out in the wrong places

Anonymous wrote:Polyamory has become just like CrossFit was a few years ago: 1. Nothing wrong with it if it works for you, many dig it; 2. Carries inherent risks that make it a bad fit for most people; 3. Practitioners cannot stop talking about it.

This is spot on. Wee bit culty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m poly and say nothing about it to anyone except my own partners and anonymous forums. 1) It’s no one else’s business, and 2) it works fantastically well for me but I would never in a million years presume it could or should work for others.

Just announce you're both polyamorous and asexual. It's the best of both worlds. Several bloggers have done this already.

What do those people do? Get coffee with their many non-lovers?

Wait, isn’t polyamorous asexuality just….friendship?

Friendship is old fashioned and boring. Polyamorous asexuality is the wave of the future!

Pretty much. I had a friend tell me she was "polyamorous" and I asked her was she having sex with one or both of her roommates? Surprise, none.

It was just more sexy to say that, instead of saying she was roommates with a couple for budget reasons.

It does sound more progressive than budgeting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polyamory has become just like CrossFit was a few years ago: 1. Nothing wrong with it if it works for you, many dig it; 2. Carries inherent risks that make it a bad fit for most people; 3. Practitioners cannot stop talking about it.

It seems to me that you vanilla types can’t stop talking about it, either

Ha! Who said I was vanilla? You shouldn’t presume. Heh

Oh, please. If you weren’t a Suzy Homemaker type you wouldn’t be making digs at it.

Polyamorous people can be pretty--even painfully--vanilla, notwithstanding the non-monogamy. And plenty of monogamous people are very unvanilla (whatever the opposite of vanilla is). Making digs at how painfully awkward a lot of poly people doesn't mean that PP is vanilla.

A part of the appeal of polyamory is that frumpy HR klatch types in librarian glasses can feel like they are “kinky” and “trangressive”, even when they have reduced sex and love to something as joyless as following the byzantine rules of the world’s most unpleasant board game. This is why it attracts nerds and the neurodivergent in droves.