All Comments on 'Monogamy: It's Complicated Ch. 01'

Good start and well written. Looking forward to Ch 2.

To my mind monogamy is straightforward, not complicated. The complications tend to set in when people move away from monogamy. This is simply a matter of arithmetic. Other things equal, it is easier to reconcile the wishes of two people than it is to reconcile those of three or more.

I'm not enjoying the dueling 1st person perspectives that seem to toggle from one half of couple to the other like as rapidly as David Bowie's sexuality at an orgy circa 1971.

fag cuck shit.

Monogamy is NOT complicated, MONOGAMY doesn't include CUCKOLDRY, you're just trying to trick readers into reading yet more cuck garbage. 1*

It is going to be about non-monogamy. Monogamy is simple. Two partners, exclusive for life. It's when the third partner is added that it gets complicated. Trust me on this. The more you add, the more complicated it gets until chaos reigns. If you're bi-sexual, you just have to deal with the complexity. If you're not, why complicate? No better way to screw up your life permanently. Maybe they're all just sluts. It's just a story, though, right? Title is a little deceptive. I won't read, score or comment further. It's not going to be a moral play on the problems of complicated relationships, which would be interesting, just a dirty story. Two stars for the dirty story. The moral play would get four or five.

The tags tell the story. "Wife fucks friend while husband watches." It's easy to see where this is going, and it has nothing to do with monogamy.

I agree with @kimi1990...Since the first sentence, this wasn't about "monogamy" (that is simple, and becomes more complicated when a couple begins to add more and more partners in it, and even worst if it's only one-sided)...Not with him and not with her...This part wasn't even about a wife...But we can see where this is going, so it's easy to accept this in LW...So after this introduction, let's see where the author will take this...2* for now

Coming on here with a vile cucky story and trying to disguise it as a monogamy

story. From now on post your stories in the " I am a total idiot and deserve to have

a telephone pole wrapped in barbed wire shoved up my ass until I bleed out and die"

category. Perhaps Bonnie Taylor Anony who eats rat poop will come on and stick up for you. BIG SMILE

Shakes head

Looking forward to the next chapter. Just ignore the other "Anonymous" like everyone else does.

Just remember that only burn the bitch stories where a woman gets destroyed and

humilatedby a poor cuckold husband are allowed here.

True or not, it was entertaining,Keep on.

I have to warn you: any minute now, the "drop the true story crap" guy will come along to lecture you about the "world wide web." It's inevitable.

You haven't given us much of a story yet, so there isn't much to comment on. So far, it's a story about how two people met. Although I'm not a fan of the "he-said/she-said" dual point of view stories, this one works in a cute Harry Met Sally kind of way.

As for the title, monogamy means that a person makes a commitment to another person for life. When you're in a monogamous relationship, you vow to be honest, trustworthy, loyal, supportive, and loving to your partner. You promise to love your partner unconditionally. You promise to stick with your partner in good times and bad, never abandon them, and put their needs ahead of all others.

To a lot of folks here, though, monogamy simply means "don't have sex with anyone else." That's it. Monogamy -- and marriage -- is all about the penis and vagina.

It's especially curious to hear a lecture on being faithful to one person from someone who is in a sexual relationship with two people. She should know better than anyone that commitment isn't about sex, and that love isn't finite or zero-sum. The two main characters in this story haven't even had sex (yet) with anyone but each other, yet readers are already angry.

It's too early in the story to make negative comments. The Anons like to put down new writers if they don't get what their disturbed mines want. I'm old enough to remember the swingers and flower people so your story is relatable when you get to the meat. Don't be discouraged by people who don't write or post anything but criticism.

Looking forward to what you are going to bring us. Don't give up.

Sincerely,

Santacruzman

It appears you didn't follow your own advice. Love the way you cuckies are always bitching about others. Read the fucking story, comment on it, pull your little wiener and then do us all a favor. Shut up.

I can't comment on story. Read the tags-husband want wife to fuck strangers. That was enough to for me to move on, but I always enjoy reading the moaning comments from the perverts. Gives me a chuckle all the time.

Keep going. Let's get to chapter 2 and beyond. Ignore the knuckle daggers who don't like anything and clearly can't do better.

1. Just ignore the other anonymous

2. Disregard the naysayers

3. Too early for negative comments

4. Ignore the knuckle draggers

Pretty much should tell us who this story was written for. I don't think it's for the monogamist.

You finally did it! You spent the time to put the words on paper and send your story off to Literotica—and what happens? Even before you get past the first chapter you have a bunch of readers, many of whom can’t write anything more interesting than a poison pen comment, tearing your story up and apparently trying to stop you from ever submitting another story. Don’t play their game.

If you enjoy writing—keep on doing it. You’ll find several on this site who will give constructive comments.

A couple suggestions:

@Proof read aloud if you don’t have anyone who will either read it back to you or listen to you read it. Text to voice feature on Office Word is a real friend, if you just take time to bear with it.

@While first person POV allows readers to identify a little closer to characters, it isn’t worth the disadvantages when you try to feature two or more main characters. Suggest you try CH02 in third person. You can get into the head of both husband and wife interchangeably and story may flow smoother.

@suggest you make stories longer, at least long enough to introduce conflict in the first, then solve it in second while introducing another conflict in next chapter. Personally, I’m not a fan of the serial stories, unless you have to make it more than five or six pages. If you must do serial, study the way the pros do it.

Your story, what there is of it, is better than 80% of the first time stories, in my opinion. You show talent and I hope you continue writing. GOOD LUCK AND KEEP ON WRITING!

. . let's see where the story goes from here. So far it is boy meets girl and they share a mutually satisfactory first sexing. The title and intro paragraphs hint at further alternatives to come. I'll await the next chapter to see how far to go with this story. Lead on AmatureBard, good job so far.

I always enjoy reading your comments, but I have to disagree with you re. third-person. First, I wouldn't recommend changing perspectives from one chapter to another. But more to the point, I think the changing first-person perspective for this particular story may be needed, because it seems as though the core of this story (as far as I can tell) is understanding the thoughts and motivations of this husband and wife. A third-person narrator can't know what a person is thinking.

Of course, I'm assuming that we need to know what the husband AND wife are thinking because this story is about both of their journies into this alternative lifestyle. But that's only an assumption at this point.

I may be imagining this, but it even seems as though there are two people writing this story, as the styles between the husband and wife narratives are somewhat distinctive. If that's not true, then I tip my hat to the author.

cuckold

wife uses dildo

husband wants wife to fuck stranger

deep throat

wife fucks friend while husband watches

Yes, I agree author, monogamy would be complicated if the above tags are the heart of this story.

According to one source the definition of monogamy is: the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time. Another source: is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner his or her lifetime or at any one time

Monogamy is very common among birds.

I guess humans aren't birds, so they make up their own rules. No author, monogamy isn't complicated, rather straight forward. It's humans that make it complicated by changing the definition to suite their own personal desires.

Like always, love the public feedback, often more interesting reading than the actual story.

To be fair I won't read or score this story, since I'm biased about the subject matter. (signed ML)

Most likely about people watching each other fuck. How erotic . Look I'm boinking your wife real good, my wife's pussy feel good to you. She got a gold mine there, maybe I should charge for it's use. Hmm, let me think on that.

Carolinadreamer you and swingerjoe are quite the pair. Discussing the merit on how to write, rather than what to write. You guys take the cake, or should I rephrase that, grab the pussy.

You should show us what to write by writing something yourself instead of contributing nothing to this site except your idiotic comments. You're welcome for providing you with free entertainment.

. . . this is more a commentary on many of the thoughts expressed in the comments section of this (and many other) stories. I don't often have a problem understanding conversations switching back and forth from speaker-to-speaker, voice-to-voice, thought-to-confusion and even an occasional trip out to left field and beyond.

If a reader such as myself has spent as many hours as I have spent in my lifetime on a bar stool surrounded by semi-friends and total strangers that reader gets used to, even relishes, totally disjointed multiple conversations simultaneously. All it takes is a careful ear, another sip from the whisky glass and a blissful ignorance that feels better as the night progresses.

Take the time to read the story with two eyes, two ears and one mind. AB's story isn't that hard to follow at all. It may be a little slow in starting but let the bartender pour another round and things will get clearer in one way or another.

I don’t know what comment you read, Joe, but it wasn’t mine. Lecture on being faithful to one person? You are deep in the grip of your delusions. I said not one word about “being faithful to one person.”

I made an observation on the obvious. I am not like you, Joe. You view, according to your statement, sex as something unconnected to commitment. I believe it is part of commitment. Certainly, it is not ALL of commitment, but part of it, and a large part. I do not sleep around with those to whom I have no commitment. I am not a “swinger.” I am as faithful as an old dog to my commitment.

Sex is something that can happen outside love, but is best enjoyed within that parameter, in my opinion. You, obviously, disagree. Love is not a zero-sum game, I agree. One can double up in that capacity overnight, as it were. The birth of a second child is a case in point. One doesn’t transfer half the love for the first to the second. That is beside the point. Is this story going to be about a loving, committed monogamous relationship or a loving, committed polyamorous relationship? Not according to the tags. It’s going to be about cuckolding and wife watching.

It seems curious to hear a lecture on monogamy from someone who is not monogamous. What do you know about it? You know the same thing I do: the definition. You gave the same definition I did. What’s the problem? You don’t think that relationships grow more complicated as more people are added? If so, you’ve never been around a group of schoolchildren, or your swinger tag is a fiction.

Monogamy is one of the few things left that are not in a gray area. You are monogamous or you are not.

You wrote: "Monogamy is simple. Two partners, exclusive for life." The implication there is "sexually-exclusive", which is fine if that's how you and your partner(s) have agreed to define it. But many healthy, committed, couples define "exclusive" differently. Who are you to decide how it should be defined for everyone?

I have a great repulsion for anyone who tries to dictate how someone else should live. My philosophy is: do whatever makes you happy, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's ability to do the same. It's perfectly fine if you don't like what someone else is doing to promote their own happiness. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm also entitled to my opinion that your view on monogamy is strange coming from someone who is in a polyamorois relationship. What do you know about committing yourself to one person for a long period of time? I've been married nearly a quarter of a century. I'd like to think I know something about it.

(For the record, my wife and I haven't been "in the lifestyle" for so long that we're as monogamous (by any definition) as anyone else here. Given the timeframe of this story I suspect the author is in the same boat.)

I call the comments entertainment, and I do that without reading the story. (As I rarely read LW stories these days.)

Comments are interesting in the forcefulness with which opinions are expressed, much more strongly with LW commentators than I note in other categories.

Joe expressed revulsion for people telling others how to live. Me too, so long as how others live doesn't do harm. But it's sometimes difficult to express a strongly held opinion without it coming across as "You must be like this and you must not be like that". And there's always dispute about what does or doesn't do harm to society.

All that is what makes the LW comments so interesting. So to me this is a good story because it elicited entertaining comments.

Lue

"As I rarely read LW stories these days." Thank you for admitting that you are a troll.

I find hotwife/cuck relationships fascinating, so I will continue, but Kimi's comments and others re definition of monogamy are spot on. Wanting the words to mean something else, does not make it so. Dictionaries have specific definitions for words. Monogamy is ones of those words that brokes no compromise, like pregnant, you cant be sorta, kinda, monogamous, it is either/or.

That is a big problem I have with alternative lifestyle types, they are so wishful to be considered part of the norm;, spend so much time bending and parsing words to try and rationalize their own views. it aggravates me. Dont try to sell me or the masses on the benefits of behaviors that are clearly (most of the time) not rational nor healthy for the families or people involved.

LW readers and writers have re-defined words like 'cuckold' and 'consequence' to mean something more specific than the dictionary definition. How about 'monogamy'?

In some parts of the world it means 'no man other than me shall see any part of my wife other than her eyes which shall be behind a veil'. 'Monogamy' in most LW stories here seems to mean 'no penis other than her husband's shall enter a wife's vagina'

It goes alongside the meanings of terms like 'adultery', 'faithful' and so on. Maybe Lex1 could extend his name to Lexicographer and take on the task.

Lue

"Dont try to sell me or the masses on the benefits of behaviors that are clearly (most of the time) not rational nor healthy for the families or people involved."

My suggestion to you would be: don't try to preach to the masses that you know which behaviors are "rational" or "healthy" when you clearly have no experience with those behaviors and no idea what you're talking about. It cuts both ways.

It's interesting that more people are commenting about this story's tags than the actual story.

I enjoy a good hotwife story very much. This is not a good one. I've said this before, to me, Kimi1990 is the best and most entertaining commentator on this site. I'd rather read her comments than this story. Without fail, her first comment is a sensible and cogent review of the story. Then swingerjoe, Luedon and assorted anonymous shit-stains come along. She doesn't mind mixing it up with them, either, and she makes them look as juvenile as they are. Besides, she has a sense of humor that swingerjoe lacks.

No need for a lexicographer. We have a perfectly good dictionary. "Mono," is a Latin prefix meaning "single." "Gamy" is another Latin word meaning "marriage." The current definition is "having one sexual partner at a certain time."

You can call a brick a ball if you want to. That doesn't mean it will bounce. Words have meanings, and we can discover what they are.

Swingerjoe and luedon are "repulsed" when people try to tell others how to live, but day after day, they come on here and do exactly that. They are the reverse of Justgr8 or the guy that makes the "fag cuck shit" comment on every story. Their comments amount to, "not fag cuck shit." Most people seem to be repulsed by swingerjoe and luedon.

You managed to pack so much wrongness into one comment, my head is spinning!

First, you claimed this isn't a good "hotwife" story when (so far) it isn't a hotwife story at all! So far, it's a story about two people meeting. Did you even read the story??

Next, you mistake sophomoric snark for clever humor and quality entertainment.

Then, you claim that "gamy" means sexual partners. Did you flunk out of Latin class??

Sorry...gimme a minute...laughing too hard...

Okay, finally, you claim that I (and luedon? Seriously?) come here to tell people how they should live,

Congratulations, Anony, you win today's prize for Dumbest Comment.

I think you get the prize for flunking out of second grade English class. Maybe you should stick to "See Dick run."

The guy said that "gamy" meant marriage. You must need new glasses. I think you win the "most embarrassing gaffe" prize. But then, you're never embarrassed, are you? Even when you fuck up as badly as you did about Legends' Day, here you are, still spouting your shit.

mo·nog·a·my

Origin early 17th century: from French monogamie, via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek monogamia, from monos ‘single’ + gamos ‘marriage.’

Reading is fundamental.

""Gamy" is another Latin word meaning "marriage." The current definition is "having one sexual partner at a certain time."

Hmm. Let me read that second sentence one more time.

"The current definition is "having one sexual partner at a certain time."

Hmm. Sure seems as though this Anony is presuming that "gamy" means a marriage that involves only one sexual partner.

But hey, nice try. Thanks for the effort. I'd love to know how I "fucked up" Legends Day, but sadly you'd have to change your IP to comment again, since you're too cowardly to register a username, so I guess I'll never know.

Thank you. Now please show me where it mentions sexual partners in that definition.

The thing is, this notion of having only one sexual partner for life is relatively new and limited to Western civilization. We act as though sexual exclusivity is natural, and has always been the norm, when in fact it's the opposite. If limiting yourself to one sexual partner for life were truly natural, it wouldn't be so common to see men and women stray.

Half of all marriages end in divorce, and half of all men and women admit to cheating on their spouses. Clearly, this notion that monogamy must include sexual exclusivity isn't working so well.

Tough words anon. May I ask, what exactly are you contributing to this site, besides attacking another reader. Your spewed vitriol and anger speaks volumes about your mentality.

He can't be embarrassed

Glad to help you out, Joe. I'm not anonymous, so that takes away your first line of attack. Monogamy, meaning single marriage is, according to the dictionary, an archaic use of the word. That is the origin. If you then look at the definition under the etymology, you will see that the meaning has changed from the original usage. That is what anonymous evidently meant by the word "current." Current, Joe. It means "now."

It now means: 1. Married to one person at a time. 1.1. Having one sexual partner at a time. 1.2 In zoology, the habit of having only one mate at a time.

There, now you can get your mind wrapped around it. Wait, that implies... Umm... Never mind.

I know it is impossible for you to admit that you are now, or ever have been, wrong, but you're just looking stupid here. Maybe you can make up some statistics now. Two thirds of all transexual Bo people believe monogamy means eating only rutabagas. Out.

Leave the guy bleeding with his gut spilled out on the ground, why don't you. Fucking rutabagas! I nearly pissed myself laughing and had to run for the bathroom!

I'll bet you can't wait to see how Chapter 2 goes with the Commentariat.

Lue

Ps: Since we now have duelling definitions, I'm even more convinced we need a LW Glossary.

Are you still here?

Thanks for telling me things I already know. Brilliant!

The original Anony claimed that the suffix "gamy" refers to sexual partners, when it fact it refers specifically to marriage. It derives from an Ancient Greek word (gamia.) You've given me the modern-day dictionary definition, which is entirely irrelevant to my point that "gamy" has to do with marriage, and not sex.

I guess I need to point out that, up until very recently, "marriage" only referred to a union between one man and one woman. We seem to constantly redefine our vocabulary.

Of course, all of this is completely irrelevant to my original point about commitment, but what the hell. It's Saturday.

Please shut the fuck up. God. Do you just enjoy hearing your voice? It doesn't get irritating to you?

It's fine that you don't agree with Kimi. But her right to express an opinion is just as valid as anybody else's. And she gets a lot of people thinking as a result of expressing her opinion as strongly as she does.

In days gone by, the Romans had gladiators as their entertainment. The LW commentariat has Kimi and SwingerJoe.

Lue

thumbs up

for the premise of this debate. here we have a rather hilarious discussion between to people with very strong opinions on a stupid meaning. one sees it as being very black and white, and the other sees it very differently. to me this was just a stroke story. but seeing you chose to stick this in loving wives instead of mature or erotic cuplings only means your looking to get a bigger reaction from you viewers. congratulation my friend, you have succeeded. I hope you know what you got your self into. LW readers are the most toxic audience to write to, more bad comments than good, especially when it comes to wife sharing, swinging and cuckholding, threesomes mmf and ffm. Expect low score maybe the max you will get will be floating above 3 but getting a 4 and higher will be a rare commodity. You best learn how to change your ip adress or frequent internet cafes that way you can rigg the rating system. it will make you feel good about yourself seeing that high score beside your published story.

Love your story line, keep it going please xoxoxoxxo Annette

Is a cheap slut

stupid cuck shit.

I was hoping to read of their "sharing", but still enjoyed ... Looking forward to Chapt 2.

Isn't that a normal loving wives story? Seems like there are a few readers lapping this up. Who is anybody to deny them their pleasure? I bet there are going to be a few hard ons and dripping pussies when this story is finished. lol Have fun children.

That one cracked me up.Anon, do you think that "kimi" is talking to herself when typing these comments? lol Maybe she's cussing out your miserable ass for making a stupid comment. Could that be it?

I never dreamed my opening chapter would evoke such vitriolic commentary. For those that see this as just another cuck story, if it took place today you're probably right. This story occurs in the early 1970s, when the contraceptive pill was becoming mainstream and women were finding they had the same sexual freedom that men had. This new found liberty created new boundaries for both genders, and the institute of marriage took on a new look. I tell you this not to justify some (but few) authentic criticisms, but to give you the background of the story. I'll be publishing chapter 2 soon. I hope you all come back and share your thoughts.

For those of you who provided complementary or constructive suggestions, thanks very much.

I grew up in the same time frame and this story brought back fond memories. Thanks for posting

ABard, your story is beginning well. Don't worry about the vitriol of the Anony writers. Your story is getting an average score of almost 4, so you are getting about 3 positive ratings for every one that they give you out of their personal well of negativism.

No, Joe, there is only one way to define exclusivity. You are either exclusive or you are not.

If a couple WILLINGLY AGREE to be non-exclusive, more power to them, but don't try to tell me that they are simply "defining" exclusivity differently!

Regarding Kimi, I don't pretend to know the intimate details of her relationship, but from her writings I would assume that she and her partners are exclusive within the boundaries of that relationship. She isn't having sex with outside partners and pretending that by some magic her primary relationship isn't affected!

Why are you still arguing with swingerjoe? He's like a drone, just keeps on humming, hoping for a fatal strike. He knows he can't win on points, so maybe wearing down the opponent is the strategy. lol

The author makes an important point that the early 1970's (and late 1960's) were a pivotal change in the roles of men and women ... Largely due to the invention of the birth control pill. For the first time, women did not have to worry about getting pregnant ... And therefore could do as they pleased. Not only single young women but older, yes, married women as well. No more worries about who the daddy was! We were not as aware of STD's as we are today, so, for many, freedom rang.

Many of us explored. Yes, even married people did. And it was sooo fun. The anonymous posters here cannot begin to understand ... Instead they preach only their version of morality.

I know, now in my 70's, that this opened our eyes ... For the better ... No more jealousy for those of us who embraced our new freedom. My young wife and I experienced some of this fun ... Without the pain of conventional thinking. Two of our early adventures are written about here under this author name. Yes, monogamy is complicated .. And so are the alternatives. Try not to be so critical .. To each his own.

"No, Joe, there is only one way to define exclusivity. You are either exclusive or you are not."

Well, no, actually. There is sexual exclusivity, romantic exclusivity, emotional exclusivity, etc.. Just because you define "exclusivity" to mean sexual exclusivity doesn't mean everyone must do the same. To each his own. Live and let live.

Kimi's sexual relationship with two partners is presumably exclusive to those two. There are PLENTY of folks who would insist that anything other than a man-and-woman exclusive relationship is sick and perverted and not "exclusive" at all. What if Kimi, her boyfriend, and girlfriend all decide to incorporate another "exclusive" partner into their mix? Would it still be exclusive? Or do we stop at the number three for some arbitrary reason?

My original point (which continues to sail over the heads of the Literotti) was that just because a couple has sex with others outside of their relationship doesn't mean they aren't committed to each other in every other aspect. For too many readers here, it seems that where someone puts his or her naughty parts is far more important than anything else a marriage involves.

You are wasting your time. Loving wives is a popularity contest. No use making valid points. Kimi/ BR are in agreement with the majority, so the LW Community will overlook any inconsistencies. I think Kimi's tripod relationship is really just another jab at how dumb she perceives everyone else to be. The two way lesbian relationship is really her two alter egos, and the third is her husband. How else do you explain the inconsistencies in her lifestyle and her attitude against alternative lifestyles in general? But hey, who am i to put puzzle pieces together?

The point is, the people don't care about truth. They only care about disagreeing, even if its just for the sake of it. You won't get credit for making valid points because they just want to disagree with you.

Open your eyes.

Nice strawman, Joe!

I think MOST of us are talking about SEXUAL exclusivity here!

How many times have we heard the wife saying "It's just sex, it's YOU I love!" Most of us call bullshit, we don't CARE that she's "emotionally exclusive," she broke the promise of "sexual exclusivity" that MOST of us consider part and parcel of a monogamous relationship.

As for ANY tripod relationship, yes, I would imagine that if ALL parties agreed then a fourth party could be added, then they would be exclusive among the four of them, but once again, it is NOT monogamy, no matter now much the original husband and wife want to pretend that it is.

I think too many people toss around terms like "strawman" without really knowing what they mean. I didn't make a strawman argument. I made a valid point that you danced around by twisting its meaning.

I'll try to make this point a little more explicitly. If your definition of "monogamy" includes sexual exclusivity, and if this definition is shared by both partners in a monogamous relationship, and if one of those partners then has sex with someone outside of that relationship without the expressed consent and knowledge of the other partner, then it's no longer monogamy, trust has been broken, and a grave injustice has occurred.

Can we agree to that?

If so, then...what does any of that have to do with this story?

To the author: having fun? Welcome to Loving Wives!

Maybe I misused the "strawman" term, but what I meant, and I'm sure you realize this, is that what was under discussion sexual exclusivity, and you decided to cloud the issue by throwing other kinds of exclusivity into the mix.

Yes, we can agree on that.

And what it has to do with this story, is that it claims to be about monogamy when it obviously isn't!

In this chapter of the story (and the next), a man has sex with one and only one woman. Under what definition of "monogamy" does this story violate that term? I've said it before, but I'll say it again: folks seem to comment more on the story's tags than the story itself!

Re. the term "monogamy", if you scroll through dozens and dozens of comments, you'll see that some Anony claimed that the word "monogamy" means "having sex with only one person" (or something to that extent.) My point was that "monogamy" has nothing to do with sex. It's about commitment, loyalty, trust, love, etc.. "Monogamy" refers to a marriage to one person. "Marriage" can means many different things to many different people.

As others have pointed out, the comments are often more interesting than the story. That's certainly true of this story (so far.)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

To ME, if a man and a woman tell me that they are in a monogamous relationship, married or not, that means that NEITHER of them have an intimate relationship with another person, regardless of sex or permission.

If my wife has sex with another woman, with my approval, we are no longer monogamous, in my MOST humble opinion. It doesn't mean that we don't still love and are committed to each other, just that we are no longer monogamous.

As a married man for 27 years, I can tell you that marriage and romantic love are not about making your partner happy, or enabling them to achieve their dreams, or live their fantasies. Marriage is about sharing a life with another person, and by that sharing making each of you a better person. It's a choice. Romantic love is about wanting to be with that one person more than anyone else, and marriage is about choosing to be with that person exclusively. So if you want to be with someone else, or choose to be with someone else, then by definition you don't truly love your partner. At least not as fully and deeply as people in a loving committed relationship. It's not complicated at all. It just conflicts with getting what you want whenever you want it, however you want it. But that's the point of living with someone. The way this impacts the story is that the wife knows this. because most people know it implicitly or else they have seen it or learned it. So she should be calling BS on this guy from the get go. Why husband thinks that an open marriage is a good idea is barely plausible. Why she goes along with it is not.

Monogamy is simple. You dedicate yourself to one person and only fuck them. Simple!

Swinging, sharing, poly- , etc. Are complicated as you're adding multiple variables to the situation.

The only way your title makes sense is if you're doing that bullshit SJW/feminist thing where you're redefining words to fit your nonsense message. You fail!

I totally can relate to this turn on and the deeper meaning between animal lust/physical enjoyment and true deep love for your mate. Don't let these others put you down for that...enjoyed the read...nice job...would like to see part 4

Hey, not my thing, but if consenting adults want to bring others in, and if it works for them, fine. Just don't try to tell me that they're monogamous!

As I said to Joe, it's like me eating meat and telling you that I'm still a vegetarian, that I just define vegetarianism differently!

cuck shit.

Can't wait to read the next chapters. Love this concept.

Monogamy is not complicated. It means one man, one woman, no others. Pretty straightforward.

I was in my mid to late 30s when I finally became aware of both my quite strong voyeur side and the fact it intensely turns me on when other men aggressively flirt with my wife.

When a man caresses my wife's knee or the love handle above her hip bone, I get totally mesmerized & don't want to intervene: I am in a trance of sorts in those moments.