My 'Two Rules' to happy, comfortable non-exclusive relationships

[Johnny Soporno]

An awful lot of people over the years have looked upon me with envy, awe, respect, or disbelief, because my 'Worthy Playboy Lifestyle' is completely unusual, iconoclastic, and counter-intuitive to most.

I can assure you all, it works, is consistent, predictable, and satisfying to the extreme.


I'm 39 years old, balding, heavy-set (think Tony Soprano in the early seasons) fellow who wears Hawaiian shirts most of the time... (see below!)



I am also one of the most experienced and socially-mature players in this Game called Life.

In spite of my looks, not because of them, I do fantastically well with women of all cultures, styles, and idiosyncrasies...
SO what is my secret? What is the special formula which has facilitated my happy life?

I empower women to make their own choices! (In fact, I won't PERMIT them to abdicate the choice!)

For the last 15 years or so I have generally had a 'Primary' GF (with whom I would reside) and usually between three and maybe a half-dozen secondary gfs, in slow-rotation, plus an inestimable number of casual playmates, some of whom might join into the pusse* (stet) from time to time.

To understand my situation, it is vital to recognize the distinction between TITLES (Capitalized) and roles (non-capitalized). The Primary is the one who bears the 'title' and role of GIRLFRIEND and may refer to me as her BOYFRIEND, whereas the secondaries all recognize that they can maintain the 'role' of girlfriend, and behave with me and towards me as their boyfriend, but that ours is not an overriding relationship.

I used to manage using what I called 'GITM' rules (Gays In The Military - Don't ask, Don't tell) with my Primary, and the others would respect that they must keep things quiet; but it was always ultimately a losing proposition, because over time the girlfriends would want more, and eventually cattiness and discontent would tear my playhouse down.

About eight years or so ago I recognized the trouble-domain: I didn't want a harem!

I wouldn't have ONE Wife, why in the world would I want many!?

So I vowed to myself I would no-longer permit women to live in denial about their rivals; but this made for very uncomfortable situations of nasty infighting, so it needed to be modified once again.

Finally I developed what I refer to as my TWO RULES: model, which has served me very well (incredibly well, actually) ever since the beginning of the millennium.

For ALL the women in my life, from my Primary (with whom I live, and share a bed every night when we're in the same city) to the girls I met and slept with last month in Los Angeles, whom I don't know if I'll see again before year's end, the TWO RULES are absolute, intractable, inflexible, and adamantine:

Rule One: I WILL BE NO WOMAN'S ONLY MALE LOVER!

Rule Two: Every girlfriend MUST COMMIT TO DO HER BEST to get along with my other girlfriends.

These two, very simple, incredibly elegant pillars keep my home happy, my ladies ecstatic, and my sacs drained.

A little more detail, in case the beauty of this is lost on anyone...

Regarding RULE ONE:

Every woman I am with knows IMMEDIATELY (because I tell her outright) that when I'm not with her, I'm with someone else.
Therefore, I need for her to understand that SHE WILL NOT EVER be entitled to unlimited, unrestricted, nor exclusive access to me, and as such she will need to find ways to keep herself amused when I am elsewhere.

No amount of 'But Baby, I only want to be with YOU!' will ever shake my resolve, as that situation is a SURE FIRE ROAD TO HELL, when the girl's resentment begins to perk-up and she becomes a green-eyed monster....

So, by insisting she has other male-playmates, I remove A) her justification for being uptight with me when I'm unavailable to satisfy her cravings, and B) I ensure she continually refines both her skill-set and her expectations, thereby keeping me on my toes, and preventing my complacency.

Regarding RULE TWO:

Since every girl knows I'm getting around, just as they themselves are, and that there are 'others', they begin to realize there is no such thing as a 'rival' and that cattiness or ganging-up/bashing other girls in the circle won't help anyone, and will in fact necessitate their own removal from the otherwise very comfortable situation.

This second Rule guarantees a fundamentally harmonious and happiness-conducive lifestyle which has been working for me for the better part of a decade, and shows no signs of slowing down or breaking apart.


Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

*Pusse is the feminine-form of 'posse'

[Johnny Soporno]

Wow! Thanks for this very well-phrased an in-depth series of questions, Ev!

Originally Posted by Evan Essence

Curious. How often do you change Primaries? Is it possible for a lower case girlfriend to become the upper case, and if so, how? What are the differences in benefits between the upper case and lower case girlfriends? I mean, what do I get/give from having the title that I wouldn't get/give as a role playing girlfriend? Is it solely a matter of geography, that is, the Primary being the one who's in the bed at home base?

I don't 'change' Primaries per se, but from time-to-time conditions arise which necessitate moving-on from one situation to the next, and generally by mutual consent my 'Most Significant Other' (aka Girlfriend-of-Record] and I opt to separate to some degree.

Fundamentally this is a lot like a 'break up' usually because we've grown apart, become disenchanted, poorly-managed expectations, or perhaps even found someone else which compels a change-of-status.

I don't really have any EX Girlfriends or ex girlfriends, but merely girlfriends-in-remission, so to speak. They opt to disconnect for whatever reasons, knowing that I was always very honest and direct about everything with them; and that my door will always remain open for their return.

Normally, a secondary girlfriend isn't actually LOOKING for anything more 'heavy' than the relationship we have, and therefore isn't looking to 'trade-up' to Girlfriend Title and situation, but then it's also incorrect to describe their status as a 'role playing' thing; I am _A_ boyfriend of theirs, just as they are _A_ girlfriend of mine, and there's no complicated overhead.

The major difference between Primary and secondary roles is, as you suggested, that my Girlfriend would share be living with me, and we'd share a bed under normal circumstances. She would feel confident in introducing me to her family and business associates as Her Man, and would normally house most of all of her clothing in our shared closet, anticipate my returning to our shared Home each evening, unless explicitly expecting an agreed-to variation.

My Primary always maintains her own home, separate from Ours, which we both contribute-to-upkeep on, so that if either of us wants to bring a 'date' someplace, we can have some privacy.

Originally Posted by Evan Essence

If I were to ignore your other girls, would that be acceptable to fulfill this requirement? I mean, if I were the Primary, would I have to take phone messages and actually, like, talk to them and occasionally break bread with them and stuff? Or is it enough to not want to have anything, positive or negative, to do with them? And is whining, "Goddamnit, Johnny, I wanted you home for Thanksgiving," a violation of this rule, or is a little of that acceptable so long as the complaint is centered on general dissatisfaction that you can't be everywhere at once, rather than deep resentment toward the other woman?

I never insist people DO get-along as friends, but I ALWAYS insist they not conspire nor act-out against one-another, nor slag each other to me or associated third-parties. (This is disharmonious and counter-productive, and in truth practically never takes place at all - the filters by which I decide upon my friends are very consistent, and tend to pre-qualify each new friend to my other friends.)
Once the notion of competitive rivalry is removed, the finest qualities of each person become obvious, and virtually all of my friends (be they lovers or platonic) tend to enjoy all my other friends.

Taking phone messages is moot, in that I have a service for that connected to my single telephone number (my cellular phone) and that is probably one of the best features of modern telecommunications (exclusive, individual access) because it reduces unnecessary friction.

Dining with, attending social events, etc, is always optional, but normally non-contentious - as long as people are grown-ups TRYING to get along, they usually do. I expect the people I invest my energy in and emotionally expose myself to to display fine maturity (hormonal-crises aside - I track all my gfs cycles in my blackberry's calendar, and set warning-alarms to manage unpredictable mood-swings) and I have rarely been disappointed.

Originally Posted by Evan Essence

Well, that's simple. On paper. Isn't the real problem the scheduling, however? Yes, I can live without unlimited or exclusive access to you, hon, but we need to sit down and plan out your schedule. Do we both agree that two hours with that whore... er, sorry, I mean your secondary girl in Council Bluffs on Thursday is enough this week, and I should get an hour and a half that evening? No? Okay, how about an hour then? I guess what I'm asking here is whether you mutually plan with your Primary or it's just up to her to be satisfied to expect you when she sees you. Because if it's the former, that sounds like more work than marriage. And if it's the latter, well, quite frankly, I think she's making too big of a concession.

My Primary is JUST THAT: first called and first considered. She's the girl I'm IN LOVE with, in the classic sense, and she is coincidentally in love with me; otherwise we would move on...
So if I have someone else I'd like to meet up with, I coordinate our BOTH having something else to do to at that time, and we determining where we'll be (so either of us can use the shared Home, or conversely 'Her place' or wherever...)

Originally Posted by Evan Essence

Wow, a million questions here, but I'll limit myself. Like, is it conceivable for you to ever be your Primary's Secondary? Would you be okay with that? Or must you always be your Primary's Primary? If so, you really need to add another Rule.

If a Primary is truly polyamorous (ie, emotionally capable of passionately loving multiple partners), I could handle being a co-Primary for her, otherwise the disparity won't stand.

My 'Two Rules' apply equally to my Primary as to any other woman I date;
however there are understandings held between myself and my Girlfriend which are specific to that relationship.

Originally Posted by Evan Essence

Also, what relationship do you maintain with your Primary's Secondaries? Do you have to live by your own Rule 2 that way? Take messages from them and stuff? Work out a schedule that allows your Primary to have time with you but also fit in her Secondaries as she desires?

Of course. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the Gander.

To be frank, I'm also more-than-happy to satisfy multiple-male partner fantasies for my lovers, providing there's no expectation of my sexually interacting with the other men. My explicit request is, if they wish for me simultaneously to "double-penetrate" them along with another fellow, he ALSO much shave his scrotum, to avoid that nasty Velcro(tm) hook 'n' loop effect when we disconnect. Ouchie!


Hope this gives you some context, and helps everyone to see that having a respectful, non-judgmental, non-possessive, sex-positive philosophy can be the secret to a life of hedonistic debauchery without heartbreak!

Best of luck!

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

My explicit request is, if they wish for me simultaneously to "double-penetrate" them along with another fellow, he ALSO much shave his scrotum, to avoid that nasty Velcro(tm) hook 'n' loop effect when we disconnect. Ouchie!

I am satisfied that I've learned a valuable new lesson today, thank you.

[HealingMaven]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

Rule One: I WILL BE NO WOMAN'S ONLY MALE LOVER!

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.

* 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.

* 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?

* 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.

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

Rule Two: Every girlfriend MUST COMMIT TO DO HER BEST to get along with my other girlfriends.

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.

[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

[HealingMaven]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

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

Okay, that's reasonable.

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

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."

Please excuse me for a moment while I try desperately to keep my stint upon the soapbox brief:

IN WHAT DELUSIONAL WORLD ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN WHERE THEY THINK HAVING SOMEONE'S GENITALIA INSIDE ANY ORIFICE OF THEIR BODY ISN'T SEX?!??!?!?!? GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!

*deep breaths* Sorry, I understand having differing definitions of "sex." My husband and I differ in agreement on how to count number of historical partners. He thinks manual stimulation counts. I think it's foreplay. Huh... actually. No I don't. Interesting. In the couple of years since we last had that conversation I've changed my mind on that one. But HOW on earth do people mistake "oral sex" and "anal sex" for "not sex"?? THE WORD SEX IS IN THE TERM!!!

Sorry. I think we just tripped over the category of what I tend to refer to as "wussy girly sh*t." I have no patience for girls who sit by the phone dithering and say "oh no, I could never call the man." Oh puh-leeze! It's nice when someone else makes the first move but if you want something and make no effort to get it and then COMPLAIN, that's just ridiculous.

And of course the answer to my rant is in your original comment & half your philosophy - that women have been put into an absolutely awful position by a culture that historically considers them to be lower than dirt by having the slightest hint of independent sexual desire.

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

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.

Sounds good. I'll buy that.

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

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

{snip}

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.

Ah! Okay, that does put a different light on it. It about the paradigm and about establishing that your lover has an independant sexuality and NOT being dependent on you. *nods* Nice. It's designed so that it forces her to own her own sexuality.

(Gotta tell you, it's really interesting reconciling your work with my background of exposure to women's studies classes back at a liberal arts college, with personal development literature espousing total responsibility, and with the sex-positive community concepts I've encountered. Your work adds another background color to the other ideas/paradigms I've encountered. And yes, still interesting in a good way.)

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

Stop! Grammar time

*rofl!* Now that gave me a good giggle!

[funchy]

I want to thank you for sharing your experiences, including personal information & pics. Perhaps this is why your open relationship style works so well for you, unlike most "playboys", I feel like you're not full of BS. Your honesty is refreshing. Thank you!

I am going to ask something I'm sure you've had others ask you before, but I am curious to your reply. Forgive me but... If you have a "primary" girlfriend who you're in love with, why do you need to keep looking for action outside of that relationship? Does it imply that you have just not met a woman who is enough to keep you satisfied?

My other question concerns the risk. Even with condoms, they do sometimes fail and don't protect unwrapped parts of the body.
Pregnancy: what if one of your girlfriends got pregnant? Would you be willing to raise a child with someone you only had casual sex with? Has it happened?
Disease: do you & your primary get tested often? How do you deal with disease such as herpes that spread orally? Or genital warts, crabs, and other things that can be spread on the areas not covered by a condom?

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

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.

I read HealingMaven's question differently, but perhaps I misunderstood it.

If the primary girlfriend is having a dry spell because of stress, physical reasons, or whatever, could you conceive it might be possible she ends up hurt? Instead of trying to help her work through it, you go out and have you needs met by others. In a monogamous relationship, at least in my perspective, it means I need to be home with my man finding ways to de-stress him or new ways to excite him. Sometimes in working through dry-spells, periods of premature ejaculation, periods of impotency, or whatever we discover new and interesting ways to connect to each other. Your thoughts?

[Dan.Linehan]

I would have the same questions as Funchy.

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by funchy

I want to thank you for sharing your experiences, including personal information & pics. Perhaps this is why your open relationship style works so well for you, unlike most "playboys", I feel like you're not full of BS. Your honesty is refreshing. Thank you!

Thank you, Funchy!

Originally Posted by funchy

I am going to ask something I'm sure you've had others ask you before, but I am curious to your reply. Forgive me but... If you have a "primary" girlfriend who you're in love with, why do you need to keep looking for action outside of that relationship? Does it imply that you have just not met a woman who is enough to keep you satisfied?

It's not 'action' I'm seeking, Funchy - it's fulfillment.

No individual person could possibly provide me with the vast array of experiences, insights, and opportunities I desire, and it would be pathological to punish myself by presuming that any one could - or that I should 'hold out' until I find this mythical construction!

If you had a favorite meal, one which you were enthusiastic about every time you'd had the opportunity to enjoy it, then it should be obvious that you should want to select THAT MEAL whenever you could, correct?

However, without variety, eventually the appeal of THAT MEAL would dwindle; in the absence of any other options, it wouldn't take too long before you'd begin to crave ANYTHING ELSE! Not implying that you'd NEVER want to return to enjoy THAT MEAL, but rather that it would become impossible not to 'take it for granted' if it were the only meal you COULD have, and that ultimately it would become critical for you to try alternates, even if just to remind you of how much you truly appreciate your primary meal.

Originally Posted by funchy

My other question concerns the risk. Even with condoms, they do sometimes fail and don't protect unwrapped parts of the body.

Condoms, combined with immediate aggressive cleansing of the body after every sexual event reduces the risk to an acceptable level, in my experience.

Originally Posted by funchy

Pregnancy: what if one of your girlfriends got pregnant? Would you be willing to raise a child with someone you only had casual sex with? Has it happened?

I have had a vasectomy operation to remove all risk of unwanted pregnancy. My Primary has also had an irreversible sterilization since we hooked up.

Originally Posted by funchy

Disease: do you & your primary get tested often?

Yes, monthly. We are tested for a 'full panel' of STIs, including HIV, Hepatitis B & C, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and others. Our testing utilizes the PCR/DNA method of diagnostics, thereby providing results within days of first exposure. (AIM Healthcare - Home for details)

Originally Posted by funchy

How do you deal with disease such as herpes that spread orally? Or genital warts, crabs, and other things that can be spread on the areas not covered by a condom?

Herpes can be suppressed with Valtrex, taken orally, for about 6 months. Most people never have a further outbreak during or after this regimen.

Genital warts can be contracted by scratching your pubes after shaking someone's hand - therefore my Primary, and all of my active secondaries, have been innoculated against the risk of cevical cancer due to HPV. But observation/avoidance of obvious leisions and outbreaks, combined with condoms, and aggressive post-activity bathing, have worked flawlessly in preventing my contracting anything.

Originally Posted by funchy

I read HealingMaven's question differently, but perhaps I misunderstood it.

If the primary girlfriend is having a dry spell because of stress, physical reasons, or whatever, could you conceive it might be possible she ends up hurt? Instead of trying to help her work through it, you go out and have you needs met by others.

Absolutely the opposite has always been true - I am uniformly supportive and apply no pressure whatsoever to anyone, least of all my Primary. It is SHE who insists adamantly that I go have fun with our shared Playmates, or that I go off and make some new one, when or if she's on the 'disabled list' temporarily.

Originally Posted by funchy

In a monogamous relationship, at least in my perspective, it means I need to be home with my man finding ways to de-stress him or new ways to excite him. Sometimes in working through dry-spells, periods of premature ejaculation, periods of impotency, or whatever we discover new and interesting ways to connect to each other. Your thoughts?

I have no experiences to compare to those, Funchie - I haven't been in a monogamous relationship since 1989.

If my Primary is having some mechanical or psychological trouble, I'm always encouraging and supportive, and do whatever I can to ensure she is comfortable and accommodated, honored and appreciated - and never feels passed-over or abandoned. As I've mentioned above, it will be her idea that I connect with another playmate (sometimes she might invite some over!) if she knows she needs some recovery time.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

[HealingMaven]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

I read HealingMaven's question differently, but perhaps I misunderstood it.

You understood me correctly, I did mean a social dry spell rather than a physical inability. It wouldn't occur to me to ask about a literal "dry" spell, as that's what lube is for or in more extreme cases like menopause, that's what chinese medicine (my profession) is for. I did find funchy's interpretation interesting though. A good reminder never to take communication for granted on the internet.

[JoeGoldfarb]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

I expect the people I invest my energy in and emotionally expose myself to to display fine maturity (hormonal-crises aside - I track all my gfs cycles in my blackberry's calendar, and set warning-alarms to manage unpredictable mood-swings) and I have rarely been disappointed.

lmao i downloaded a period and ovulation tracker on my g1 last week for the same reason!

[HealingMaven]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

(hormonal-crises aside - I track all my gfs cycles in my blackberry's calendar, and set warning-alarms to manage unpredictable mood-swings)

Originally Posted by JoeGoldfarb

lmao i downloaded a period and ovulation tracker on my g1 last week for the same reason!

I sympathize - I've seriously dated a woman with terrible, more than prozac-worthy PMS and sometimes have cyclical mood swings myself. And not to get to terribly off topic, but if a woman is having consistantly bad pms every month, you should let your loved one know that there is help. That she doesn't have to feel miserable and/or depressed and/or out of control angry 3-14 days a month. It's something I often treat quite nicely with acupuncture and sometimes chinese herbal medicine. Almost all cases of PMS that I've seen were significantly helped; I don't know that I've ever even heard a colleague tell me about a PMS case who wasn't responding well. I know none of you are local to me, but anyone is welcome to send me a PM and if I don't know a good practitioner in your area, I'll send a message to my alumni mailing list asking for a referral in your area.

My apologies for being off-topic, but if you think it's being unpleasant to be on the receiving end of PMS, you should realize that it can be pretty awful to be the one experiencing the hormone swings. I just HATE to see anyone a prisoner of what they think is "biological destiny." It's not. PMS is nearly always manageable.

Stepping down from the soapbox and returning you to your regularly scheduled fun sex conversations.

[Incognitus]

Wow, thanks Johnny. I think you will be remembered as a pioneer in this field... i've really found your work useful, esp the video series.

My question is, whats the best way to start out? i'm in my 20s and a virgin, i have a clean slate. if you were to start now, how would you start?

though i suppose the answer to that question doesn't have much to do with me.
but i am curious, should a man start out with these 2 rules from the beginning?

thx, man. you're an inspiration.

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by Incognitus

Wow, thanks Johnny. I think you will be remembered as a pioneer in this field... I've really found your work useful, esp the video series.

Purrr

If you enjoyed the videos, please download and enjoy THIS - it further fortifies what I explain in 'Intro to Seductive Reasoning' and should be helpful in applying more of the fundamentals to which you've now been exposed.

Originally Posted by Incognitus

But I am curious, should a man start out with these 2 rules from the beginning?

If you follow the basic premises - that people MUST NOT be considered as property; that every person MUST consistently follow their hearts and minds, and making choices about with whom they connect; then yes, I believe these 'two rules' are critical.

Please check out the audio program I've linked you to, above - I really believe it will help you come to comfort with everything you'll need to understand here.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

[JackTP]

Interesting..!

But when you say you will not be a womans only lover, I find that many times if a woman really is into you , she TRULY does not want to be with another man!

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by JackTP

Interesting..!

But when you say you will not be a woman's only lover, I find that many times if a woman really is into you, she TRULY does not want to be with another man!

Yup. That's why these two are RULES, not merely 'suggestions' nor 'guidelines'... (Go back to the Original Post for details as to WHY that's so!)

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

[TonyToneTone]

VERY good stuff, JS

Every woman I am with knows IMMEDIATELY (because I tell her outright) that when I'm not with her, I'm with someone else.
Therefore, I need for her to understand that SHE WILL NOT EVER be entitled to unlimited, unrestricted, nor exclusive access to me, and as such she will need to find ways to keep herself amused when I am elsewhere.

I am going to borrow this method. Thanks for the post.

[pyrogen]

You probably magnetize women to you just because of your confidence and because of your prior history of doing well with women - easier to keep doing well once you start. You seem like such a fun, spontaneous guy who is good at creating chemistry, just from those pics.

Would your secret though work for women if they're not in the polyamorous community?

It really seems like the dynamic with women is that both men and lesbians tend to end up having a feeling of proprietary ownership toward their partner, even unconsciously.

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by pyrogen

You probably magnetize women to you just because of your confidence and because of your prior history of doing well with women - easier to keep doing well once you start. You seem like such a fun, spontaneous guy who is good at creating chemistry, just from those pics.

Thanks - yes, I imagine once one becomes comfortable in this frame, and has proven its viability through experience, they will become FAR more compelling in their presentation and explanation of the model. In truth, it justifies itself harmoniously and elegantly in the minds of anyone who can overcome their socialization, and consider the ramifications without prejudice.

Originally Posted by pyrogen

Would your secret though work for women if they're not in the polyamorous community?

Oh, it's no secret! I've been promoting this model as-in since 2000, and living by it publicly for far longer than that!

To answer your question, virtually every women I've hooked up with has been a traditional, 'non-polyamory' socialized individual, and most were operating according to social conventions.

What I offered to them was a RADICAL CHANGE to what they had experienced before; but once they rationalized its elegance and humanity, they overcame their fear-driven programming, and embraced it fully.

Originally Posted by pyrogen

It really seems like the dynamic with women is that both men and lesbians tend to end up having a feeling of proprietary ownership toward their partner, even unconsciously.

Certainly, this is the byproduct of tremendously negative and counter-productive socialization - BUT it can be overcome!

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy