All Comments on 'Monogamy: It's Complicated Ch. 03'

# 1

The constantly-shifting narrative was so confusing it was difficult to follow this story. Especially when Marcie began referring to Annie in the third-person, I couldn't tell what was happening. I know it's intended to be confusing, as it reflects Marcie's confusion, but still, it didn't work for me. I don't really see why this story couldn't have been told from a third-person perspective entirely.

As for the plot, I found it implausible that two people would molest each other in a hotel bar. I've been to plenty of hotel bars and never saw anything like that! The ending was also confusing. Did Bill and Paul know each other? If not, why on earth would Paul basically sexually assault a married woman whose husband was meeting her in fifteen minutes? If so, why was Bill angry with Paul for doing what Bill asked him to do?

The whole thing is just a confusing mess.

I wish we had thought of a role play like this when we were young. Hot! Looking forward to your next chapter

You are writing to a small group of sick deviates .

Definition of rape: "Paul again leaned forward to whisper in Annie's ear. She again shook her head "No". When she did, Paul inched his hand forward with his fingers sensually massaging Annie's inner thighs well above the hem of her dress. Each time she said "No" to Paul's whispers, his hand inched further up between her legs"

if a girl says no, automatically a prick would think yes, because fuck what women think. they will be forced to enjoy it. im thinking feminists arent involved in righting cucky shit like i used to. more like just oversexualised porn addicts.

really as simple as love... mine has lasted 50 years through hell, high water and 5 deployments to war as a Marine. Many opportunities for both of us , but no games and the only sharing was the truth between us.... and that was not always easy or painless. but the house built on a rock does not fall.

Wow, not only well put, but a lot of truth in that. Great comment. Why in the hell would anybody want to deliberately fuck up a good marriage? Lust?

I won't comment on the content, but I will make a suggestion:

Figure out whose POV the story is being told from, and give the reader a fucking clue which it is. This bouncing back and forth from moment to moment breaks any attempt in immersion into the story, and creates a "tennis match" effect where one has to go back and forth trying to figure out what perspective is narrating.You'd be better off using third person perspective, even though third person perspective sucks out loud.

As I said, not bothering to comment on the story content, I don't think that can be rescued...

. . . "Morality is not that simple. It's not the same for everyone! It's just complicated. We all are".

Ain't that the truth. A valid notion of monogamy, fidelity, love and bonding does not have to include never having sex with someone other than one's partner. This is one story I like seeing come at me in little drips and droplets. The simplicity of title and message is its own inherent complexity. Let's me, makes me, think just a little more on a subject that has interested me for most of my adult life.

Keep up the good work A B.

"A valid notion of monogamy, fidelity, love and bonding does not have to include never having sex with someone other than one's partner."

It most certainly DOES have to include never having sex with someone other than one's partner! If you have sex with someone not your partner you are no loner monogamous. "Mono" - one. The monorail at Disney has ONE not TWO rails!

Here we go again.

Now, finish your sentence. What does "gamy" mean?

(Hint: it doesn't mean sex.)

Another shite day all cuck stories,if I knew anyone like that i would out the sexual deviant and see how they cope i don't understand cuckold a psychiatrist told me it's porn additions and little boy syndrome and a mental illness

Seeking the humiliation of having a slut for a wife is a mental illness. I wonder if he would lend out his bass boat, his golf clubs, or his gun, as enthusiastically as he wants to lend out his wife, to be fucked, by strangers. And this guy is supposed to be a cop? OK, he's acting as stupid as some cops, I'll give you that.

Her husband and I assume you as well dont deserve to be married to normal women. You both should pick whores as wives, They dont feel anything. Do u ever stop and think how some women can feel like shit after or dont you care

mo·nog·a·my

[məˈnäɡəmē]

NOUN

- the practice or state of being married to one person at a time.

- the practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.

- zoology - the habit of having only one mate at a time.

Are you nuts? Of course it's her fault. This was insanity. UGH!

Yes, one definition IS "being married to one person. "

I'm not a social scientist, so I have no way of taking a survey, but I would bet if you went into ANY general community, and asked average people if they thought that being monogamous meant NOT having sex with anyone but your partner, they would answer yes.

We obviously are never going to agree.

You get married to one person and remain faithful to them.

And why would she allow this stranger to molest her against her consent? She clearly said no multiple times. She didn't say yes, she didn't say maybe, she said "No". And making her husband a cop doesn't make him a tough guy, it makes him look stupid that he would willingly give up his faithful wife.

As someone else asked, would he be willing to give up his possesses to some stranger with the same ease as he gives up his wife?

dumb cuck shit.

Read it and complain? Just scroll by it if your not into sharing...

Could ask you the same question? Why do you complain about what others think? Just pass by the comments and move on. By the way, you didn't say you liked this story, must not have.

It's not cheating, since it was a mutual agreement. What say you reader?

I know I'll get into trouble with Joe on this one, but while by the strict dictionary definition it IS adultery, I believe in general usage and I'm pretty positive in the LW universe, it is not considered adultery if all involved parties consent.

if your into idealism its adultery in set of people but not in others.

Now im not a herd animal so getting uptight on what is your, and what isnt is your thing. but when i was young i didnt want any body messing with my wife body, cause i not raise anybody kit. now i dont care.

All the discussion and etymological arguments about what is or isn't monogamy, adultery, fidelity and so forth are really quite irrelevant. (Even though they are lots of fun for the participants and the sideline observers.)

Marriage is a social construct, not a biological one, and thus it is to the fields of anthropology and sociology we should be looking for enlightenment. Everything else is personal opinion.

My opinion, like yours I presume, is that marriage within Western cultures is mainly a monogamous construct. Alongside monogamy in its strict definition of 'one partner' there is usually the expectation of 'one sexual partner'.

But then, as the divorce rates testify, being monogamously married is not something that every couple finds easy to do. It's not only those who go outside the cultural norms who find difficulties in their relationships.

Where we seem to perpetually differ is in the acceptance of other people moving outside the cultural norms.

Lue

This story is not about monogamy. It seems to be about marital fidelity which is deliberately put at risk and then sustained only at gunpoint. Truly adult behaviour.

Enough said

Actually, lue, I think we're more in agreement than you think.

I think I may have cone across as more intolerant of alternative lifestyles than I really am, though willing/humiliating cuck really throws me a curve!

As you say: "My opinion, like yours I presume, is that marriage within Western cultures is mainly a monogamous construct. Alongside monogamy in its strict definition of 'one partner' there is usually the expectation of 'one sexual partner'." My major problem is with stories like this, and apparently Joe, that try to redefine monogamy to allow multiple sexual partners.

If consenting adults agree to multiple sexual partners, more power to them, but they are no longer in a monogamous relationship, but in a polyamorous one.

Please stop rubberstamping the nonsense of other authors. This "story" has been written many times. And it is not getting any better.

And, as I said, word definitions are not what's important here. Behaviour is better justified by whether or not it leads to successful outcomes rather than whether or not it is described by a particular word.

Lue

Lue, with all due respect, definitions come into play when a word is used in a misleading way.

This series is titled, "Monogamy: It's Complicated," but as someone else said, monogamy is simple.

What is complicated is when you go beyond the bounds of monogamy; using trickery; without full, informed consent, then try to pretend that it's STILL monogamy!

A better title would have been, "Polyamory: It's Complicated," or "Swinging: It's Complicated!"

I think I can settle this. I'm sure that we all agree that an unmarried couple can be monogamous, right? If a dating or engaged couple decide to be sexually-exclusive, we'd all say they have a monogamous relationship.

So...what's the difference between a monogamous couple that is dating and a married couple?

Whatever you just answered in your head is my entire point. Whatever you just answered defines what a marriage is -- and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX. If an unmarried couple can be just as "monogamous" as a married couple, then either marriage has nothing to do with sex or there is no difference between being married or just dating.

Glad I could clear that up! Now...what happened to all the LW stories? We've had maybe four new stories in the past two days. I know it's Easter and all, but still...

I made the point before that monogamy, whether just a life mono-partner or also a sexual mono-partner is a social construct and not a biological one.

So where does individual choice come into this? I can understand a couple making a choice, and then making a commitment to that choice. I can also understand the possibility of one or both partners having second thoughts later in life and either acting on their new way of seeing things or deciding that they should suppress those thoughts and remain 'faithful' to the original agreement. I can also understand people like SBrooks being critical of those who act on their second thoughts.

But how about couples in arranged marriages? There are many people in this world who don't make the choice -- the choice is imposed upon them.

Should we be more understanding if a person in an arranged marriage decides to commit adultery?

Lue

Perhaps that explains why we see so many "cuckold" stories from Indian writers. I had never thought of that before!

I would think that most (99.9%) of marriages -- arranged or consensual -- begin with the assumption that both partners will have sex only with each other. Regardless of how the marriage came to be, any betrayal of that arrangement is still a betrayal of trust.

It's a very interesting question, though, as to whether infidelity is easier to accept (or less of a betrayal) when it wasn't your decision to marry in the first place. There is a great story there somewhere!

Again, you like to play word games. Yes, a couple CAN be monogamous without being married (though I thought YOU were the one who tried to say that it only had to do with one MARRIAGE, but I digress)

The point still is, that married or not, to be in a monogamous relationship means NO intimate relations with other people. That's why monogamy ISN'T complicated!

It only gets complicated when you try to bring others into the relationship, at which point it is n o longer monogamous, but polyamorous!

I'm not playing "word games." You're the one who insisted on defining "monogamy" by its original meaning of "mono" and "gamy." To me, that seems like a "word game."

YOUR definition of "monogamy" is one man, one woman. That's my point. Your definition isn't universal. The definition is whatever a couple decides it is. That's why monogamy -- and marriage -- is complicated.

"Polyamory" assumes that you know what "amory" means. But then, we're delving into etymology again.

I think Westerners need to exercise caution before generalising about arranged marriages. If a woman is not permitted to choose her husband is she likely to be permitted to choose her lover? Or will she end up neck deep in the sand surrounded by men with rocks?

OBVIOUSLY it's not universal, or we wouldn't be having this debate!

But I repeat my earlier claim, that if you went into any general community, and asked if a couple was monogamous if one or both had outside intimate relationships, I would wager that a LARGE majority would say no.

The word "married" requires 218 words and five paragraphs to define in our tax code?

Like the author said, it's complicated.

Joe, if you intend to use the Tax Code, or ANY part of our legal system as evidence for how complex something is, then we might as well all go sit in a corner and suck our thumbs!

Our legal system could make breathing seem complicated!

"The definition is whatever a couple decides it is." - WRONG! Their RELATIONSHIP is whatever they decide it is, and if they decide to include other partners, that is certainly their right, but they must call it what it is, and that is NOT monogamy!

If I say that I'm a vegetarian, and you see me go into Burger King and eat a Whopper, am I still a vegetarian because I define it somehow differently? Maybe one time you can classify as a slip, but if I go in every Monday and have a hamburger, can I really claim to still be a vegetarian?

I think the story is good but I hate cheaters, swingers and cucks. It can be hot for a fictional story but in real life can't comprehend anyone allowing that in a committed relationship. The flirting is one thing but still dangerous. I know people who have been involved in all of these lifestyles and not one have stayed together. It's a disaster waiting to happen and I think it can only have a chance at working if the couple really deep down don't love or really care for each other anymore. I'm not knocking anyone its my personal feeling.

Different forms of monogamy per Google:

"Marital monogamy" refers to marriages of only two people.

"Social monogamy" refers to two partners living together, having sex with each other but not necessarily only with each other.

"Sexual monogamy" refers to two partners remaining sexually exclusive with each other and having no outside sex partners.

"Genetic monogamy" refers to sexually monogamous relationships with genetic evidence of paternity.

The most prevalent non-monogamous societies have polynygy(a man with multiple wives) and the rarest is polyandry(a woman with multiple husbands).

Oddly enough, I grew up knowing a woman (she worked for my dad) that had two mates. She spent alternate weeks with each. They had no children. I lost touch with them many years ago but at the time they had been living that way for about 40 years beginning before WW II, according to my dad.

I met a local triad in 1997 and got to know them quite well. They are still doing fine 20 years later. They have multiple kids, live in the same house, one of the husbands is a submariner and is out to sea fairly often. Are they an outlier from the western society norms? Yes, but while this would not work for me, it works for them. So be it.

I don't like certain sexual practices, but I don't see my place as lecturing the author on writing about them. I'll look elsewhere. LW authors are using way too much anal sex for my preferences, but I'll comment on how it was or wasn't appropriate for the story, not that "moral couples" wouldn't/shouldn't be doing that. This is erotica, not a how to manual for life.

dumb cuck shit.

@BuzzCzar - Again, I have no issue with that woman, but she is NOT monogamous. I suppose you could say that each of her partners were monogamous, but NONE of them are in a monogamous RELATIONSHIP. The triad is ALSO not monogamous, but polyamorous.

Your response to my commentary on marriage as expressed by AmateurBard: @BobNbobbi I Call Bullshit!

"A valid notion of monogamy, fidelity, love and bonding does not have to include never having sex with someone other than one's partner."

"It most certainly DOES have to include never having sex with someone other than one's partner! If you have sex with someone not your partner you are no loner monogamous. "Mono" - one. The monorail at Disney has ONE not TWO rails!"

The implication of your words, one rail not two, is that married relations should liit their sex to masturbation. Is that what you are trying to convince everyone?

This cop is too sweet, he should have slapped the crap out of both of them.