Truth or Dare

[oden]

Would you like to continue in the hobby as a provider or hobbyist or find the perfect partner for the rest of your life.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by oden

Would you like to continue in the hobby as a provider or hobbyist or find the perfect partner for the rest of your life.

Is both an option? What if the definition of a perfect partner includes one who wants to play?

[Sydneyb]

Originally Posted by oden

Would you like to continue in the hobby as a provider or hobbyist or find the perfect partner for the rest of your life.

Edit to clarify: Oh, its an either/or proposition for you. I think that answer to that is different for men who partake and women who provide. I think that realistically, women are not truly free to choose a man of her own UNLESS she leaves the hobby. There are too many invasive things about being a provider to that requires you lie to someone you're falling in love with. Thats a recipe for disaster. Or he's likes the variety; And I for one, don't want a man who is okay with it. As for men, the ones who don't get emotionally involved are free to play until he meets his mate; then he can segue easily into normal life. with the providers, we're invested finacially and its more difficult to make a dilineation between old life and new, unless we give one up for the other - or give up in order to pursue the other. Which is really scary because you're giving up a known quanitity for an unknown. For the most part - swingers and other poly lifestylers would likely be exempt from needing to make a choice as a provider OR man. But I defer to my lorena bobbit commentary to make my position clear on that concept ;-)

[Sydneyb]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Is both an option?

I think if you're truly honest with yourself, you know both is not an option. That the more you fuck others, the less you have to give to the one you love - and you're living a whole portion of your life you don't share with you're best friend -- even if you are with someone who is open to poly life, its not the norm. We are hardwired to want ownership of those we fuck and love. Its a propogation of the gene pool thing and a innate need to know that either; the offspring are yours (men) or that your offspring will be protected (women). This is not a negotiable thing, its deep enough in our make up that we can seldom change that which is required to protect our offspring for the simple purpose of propegating your genes (psychological evolution is an interesting area of study).

I don't believe that its something that can be intellectualized away. Can some? Yep. They are either able to evolve beyond what is required of them at a very base level or they're fooling themselves. My bet is most women who allow for a poly lifestyle are submissive in the technical sense - sexually and otherwise. Of course, its an individual decision that should be decided individually.

I do wonder about future generations - who is more likely to be a part of the future gene structure? I believe it is women who limit sexual partners and men who have as many as possible (and therein lay the problem with monogomy, ladies and gentleman.....)

[LAVixian]

continue in the hobby.... no need to ruin all the fun!!

[shooter1a]

Oden and Sydneyb, I believe you both have missed the point of the fun of the hobby.
It is genetically dictated. It's in our genes.
Both Gregor Mendel and the National Socialist have missfired on why men like to have multiple partners.
This is a survivor thing. We must spread the genes. While in the hobby we use condoms to prevent the spread of unwanted things like progeny, nature wants the cover to break.
Multiple partners and moving on tends to stir the gene pool. With out this genetic demand a man would breed with his sister and that leads to many problems.
The Bible is speckled with incidents of a righteous man welcoming the traveler with a plate at his table and bed with his daughter. Stir the pool.
Well, man did that. We stirred very well and now the planet is overpopulated but the genetic imperative still exist. Men need multiple partners.
As my S/O says, boys will be boys. Yes, that is why we are here.

Women are stronger than men. Yes they are. We may have more muscle mass but pound for pound women are much stronger than we are in every way. They are more vicious, quicker to react and are perfectly fitted to repopulate the world if need be. If men had to carry a child to term this world would belong to the nonhumans.

As Rodgers and Hammerstein said in The King and I, Man is made to go from flower to flower. Its the way of the world and rightly so. Its a survivor thing.

Think for a moment of some of our brothers who like their women with a booty butt, AKA big ass. Why should that be? I like ladies with a small tight ass. I am maybe further evolved? Hell, could be. But why do some like a booty butt? Easier child birth!

Are we right then by having multiple partners. Yes and yes again. It is antihuman to expect and want a man to be true to one life partner. Who came up with that stupid, unholy, antisurvivorist idea. It was probably some Religilous (trying for Bill Maher), guy that found he could better suppress a married man and therefor extract more money form that man.

My answer to the world: HOBBY- OFTEN AND WITH VARIED PROVIDERS.
And when you are done, repeat. Sex is not just for you, its for the survivors.

He that scores the most tail, wins.
Sydneyb, your last 'graph captures the problem properly.

As Robert Heinlein said in "Time Enough for Love" : Love is not a limiting factor, the more you give the more you have to give.

Come, my brothers, lets go love someone.

[SophieSimone]

I'm lucky to have the perfect partner AND enjoy my job as a touring companion. No need to choose just one or the other.

xoxo Sophie