[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by HealingMaven

I understand your reasoning for this as a drama-prevention device. And I respect it as an personal boundary to increase your sense of safety within relationships. But I think it makes a much better guideline than rule as it doesn't account for people in a number of situations:

* You yourself talk about how badly trained many men are as regards healthy female sexuality. If you are actually as incredibly evolved as you seem, then you'd probably spoil a number of women for the general male population. Your rule could come across as pressure to sleep with one of those jerks if the lady you've picked up is otherwise single.

EXCELLENT POINT! Which is why I am so lax regarding my definitions of 'lover' and 'sex'.

Whereas a man will accept ANYTHING which resembles a sexual act as "We had sex" for reasons of external validation, or ego comfort, women tend to go to extremes in the opposite directions, discounting as sex ANYTHING which could remotely be disqualified.

"Oh, he didn't have any condoms, and I'm not on 'The Pill', so we just stuck to oral and anal - We didn't have sex."

So for purposes of this (and in general) I publicly define "sex" as any activity involving two or more individuals where the INTENT is understood by both (or all) of getting AT LEAST ONE OF THEM off.

This includes everything from mutual (or unidirectional) masturbation, frottage, oral, anal, vaginal or BD/SM etc - ANYTHING WHICH YOUR TRADITIONAL, SEXUALLY EXCLUSIVE, MONOGAMOUS PARTNER WOULD BE UPSET IF THEY CAUGHT YOU DOING, in other words.

Originally Posted by HealingMaven

* Some women have a low sex drive. Again, I think your rule could come across as pressure for women not to do what they want -- which is to have a number of nice quiet evenings at home or out with platonic friends.

Where I specify 'Lover', I do not require that sex (even as laxly described as above) take place.

Originally Posted by HealingMaven

* Some women are more women-oriented than men. You could've pulled a lesbian, (some lesbian-identified women occassionally get involved with men) or a lesbian-leaning bisexual woman. If you're the exception, and she's happily got a gaggle of ladies of her own, why on earth would she want to find another guy with dangly bits to sleep with?

Believe it or not, I considered this for a long time before I solidified this requirement.

I have observed that IF a woman who is otherwise lesbian finds a male sexually compelling, then there is virtually certainly a pheromonal element, and it is outside of her cognitive/conscious appreciation.

Originally Posted by HealingMaven

* and hey, everyone, male or female has dry spells. If your lover is having one, this rule is guaranteed to make her feel worse about it, not only does it pummel her ego, but it raises otherwise unnecessary insecurities about losing you.

You imagine that this is sampled much more frequently than I would ever insist upon; I don't require that anyone EVER has sex to suit me - just that they be open to the opportunity, and never consider me as their only option.

Originally Posted by HealingMaven

I would think that this is just good poly common sense. (I know, common sense isn't common.) It's often a natural. I often get along with my SO's OSOs (Other Significant Others) like long lost best friends. If my partner is attracted to both them and me, there's a good chance we've got something in common in addition to similar taste in lovers. (This is one of the most gramatically painful paragraphs I've ever penned. Sorry about that.)

Still, it's a good rule for someone new to this kind of lifestyle who doesn't realize how distasteful acting like competition can be.

Stop! Grammar time

Your comment is well-enough stated to be clear, and I wouldn't deign to criticize such a positively reinforcing sentiment!

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy