Girl who breaks the rules

This is more of an indepth subject so I'm going to slap this article and hope it covers my bases.
verywellmind.com/what-does-polyamorous-mean-21882

No, thank you. I might eventually but I don't think highly of hiring people to have intimacy with you; it defeats the purpose to me. What I want is someone who will actually love and desire me. I don't know how other men handle this, but, for instance, having my cock sucked by a woman who doesn't really lust after it does nothing for me and would positively make me unbone right away. I need to be desired. Maybe I'm a woman-man but if it doesn't go both ways, it's just not the same and has none of the intensity I want.

I understand the system; I'm mostly curious about you as a person and how you feel about others, in comparison with how I feel about love.

In addition, if I love someone, the idea of her having intimacy with someone else is the purest form of torture I can think of. And it's not about jealousy: if my beloved partner wanted to have sex with someone else, and did so, I would be deeply hurt and in pain, but I would never take her freedom away. I could just not see my relationship as the same thing ever again.

From this, I assume that polyamorous people don't fall in love, because I cannot imagine being OK with the person you love having someone else orgasm with them.

Stop feeding the larper

No, I have been in love. I have also had monogamous relationships. I just acknowledge that I have the ability to like two different people with the same intensity. It's fine and dandy that you can't, but that doesn't invalidate my experience just because yours is the one that society has taught as the right thing, and that polyamory/polygamy are wrong/shameful/illegal.
And no, I'm not going to entertain that marriage back in roman empire days was romantic like our current climate. Hippity hoppity, women were property.

Which do you think is the larper?

I think with your intense indoctrination into monogamy, you've also muddled your definition of jealousy with being healthy and simultaneously unhealthy. Jealousy is actually in all absolutes a purely unhealthy concept. And also you still derive that feeling that in being partners to each other you are both owners and sex outside the relationship means you are not as important as you thought. None of that is true, all of that is jealousy speak. If you had more compersion, you'd understand that having sex with others doesn't "ruin" anyone unless it's rape. Being obsessed with your partner is also not as healthy as some would like to romanticize.

>It's fine and dandy that you can't, but that doesn't invalidate my experience just because yours is the one that society has taught as the right thing,
Not exactly. My experience is the type that went against society's rules for centuries and more. What I am saying is that if an experience like mine exists, with the consequences it has, then yours is not mine. I can imagine having many relations at once also, just not if I actually am in love, which makes me think your version of being in love may not actually be what I mean when I use the phrase.

Do not try to frame me as a "conventional" person who loves a certain way because that's what society "taught" me, it isn't that at all. It would make more sense to say yours is dictated by genetics than mine is dictated by "society", though I believe both versions are caricature. Just don't trivialise my experience by suggesting I'm just doing what I am told. Moreover, your choice isn't less "natural", as it matches what many apes naturally do.

I don't look at things in terms of right and wrong, here, but in terms of what works to make people happy, though my main concern is whether this model can work for people who fall in love.

>And no, I'm not going to entertain that marriage back in roman empire days was romantic like our current climate.
Everyone was "property", so to speak, including children and slaves, over whom Roman citizens had every right, including murder. Still, I don't think Romans forced people to marry them. But that doesn't change my point about monogamous marriage.

Am I right in assuming you don't know what it feels like to want to be the only loved person of the person you love?

>I have the ability to like two different people with the same intensity.
So do I, but that doesn't mean I won't feel jealous if any of them doesn't choose me exclusively. Which means I have to do the same and choose one of them exclusively.

Sorry. I'm not the user you were talking with and this may not have anything to do with what you were talking about.

Your call OP, but dont think of it as a dam bam thank you mam kind of thing. I am talking about a highly educated and trained person, a professional who will seduce you which is the point.

The escort will not be there just for the cash, they actually enjoy the work(not talking about thrashy brothels here but high end escorts) and are just so good at it they can charge money for it. I have talked with them personally and read their own writings, some of them highly like the aspect of meeting new people. People who are at least of some sophistication which the escort makes sure of.

And you cant make sure anybody lusts about you, they can say so and act like it. But you will never know truly what is in their head.

I actually love the meeting aspect too to be honest, i talk political theory with one lady and google search engine optimization with the other. They all have stories they tell, sure maybe they would be more genuine if i didnt pay for it but lets be honest, if you are rich and successful the love of your life will not be only attracted to you character now would she? Not saying she will be a gold digger, but your wealth will be considered even subconsciously..

I don't know what to tell you really. Sexual experience is really unique to the individual.
For example I have a medical fetish but I've never had anyone that wants to play it out with me. Although I suppose I'm not sure it's a fetish. I still enjoy normal sex and don't need it to get off like some people do. More like a fantasy that I've always wanted to try.
The worst sex I ever had probably borders on rape. I had just had some rather vigorous sex with a man and he wanted to go again. I told him no and that I was too sore. He held me down forced me. I'm in my early thirties and there was a somewhat different attitude about rape at the time. I didn't consider it rape, but it wasn't consensual.
It was very painful for me. We broke up shortly afterward.
I'm similar to you in how I view my partners and how I want them to view me. But there are other people that aren't like that. You just have to find someone that is compatible with you.

>I think with your intense indoctrination into monogamy,
This assumption is without foundation. You have no more reason to suggest my experience is indoctrination any more than I have of yours, so I don't know why you do it.

What I said was that, when in love, I cannot imagine wanting another woman than the one I love. This has nothing to do with political beliefs or anything of the sort. It's strictly how I feel. I can imagine being in relationships with ten different women, at the same time, and treating everyone fairly and lovingly. Just not if I am actually in love. Don't make this political, it isn't.

>Jealousy is actually in all absolutes a purely unhealthy concept.
As a behaviour, yes. Feeling jealousy, otherwise, is automatically connected to loving someone. If you can't imagine jealousy about someone, I doubt you truly love that person.

> And also you still derive that feeling that in being partners to each other you are both owners and sex outside the relationship means you are not as important as you thought.
At the very least, it would mean my partner does not love me as much as I love them, yes, because I would lose any desire for other women, while she, in your model, would not feel that way about me. It's more about equal loving than strictly jealousy, in my opinion.

>If you had more compersion, you'd understand that having sex with others doesn't "ruin" anyone unless it's rape.
Having sex with someone other than the person you love can indeed ruin that person. Examples are countless. And I think it would be unfair and unwise to just blame that person about their feelings.

cont.

Like honestly, I am so comfortable in my sexuality and relationship identity.
If I accidentally caught a lover of mine in bed with someone they told me they were dating, I would close the door, but also ask if they needed water and to come get me when they're done so we can do dinner.

>Being obsessed with your partner is also not as healthy as some would like to romanticize.
You have now turned being in love to "being obsessed", to make it a negative thing. That's another reason why I think you may never have been in love. Being in love makes you "obsessed" with the person you love, yes. As to whether it's healthy or not, that's another question and depends on context. If two people feel the same way about each other (truly "in love" in my model), then you have a healthy marriage and a family if both want it and there are no problems there. I don't think that's fundamentally unhealthy to depend on each other if the feeling is mutual.

>if you are rich and successful the love of your life will not be only attracted to you character now would she?
Why not? I intend to conceal the fact that I am rich when I start dating, just to be sure. I don't want to be loved for my money.

>He held me down forced me.
That doesn't border on rape, that is rape. I'm no SJW but that's the technical definition of it. I can't imagine ever doing this to anyone. How messed up and vile.

But doesn't that imply that your connection to your love is necessarily less intense than it could be?

>Feeling jealousy, otherwise, is automatically connected to loving someone.
Nope, feeling jealousy is purely about control and objectification. Neither of which are romantic, ever.
>If you can't imagine jealousy about someone, I doubt you truly love that person.
No, I love them more than my experiences and presence can provide. If anything, I can infer that you've never actually loved any woman, you only wanted to control and keep her for your own entertainment like a child that obsesses over their favorite toy.
>Having sex with someone other than the person you love can indeed ruin that person.
You can stop joking now about the objectification of people. Having sex doesn't change them as a person, it's a pleasurable activity that can result in babies, but birth control is available everywhere. If having sex outside of a monogamous relationship physically damaged you, there would be a diagnosis for it as a cureable ailment. What you're taking about is social damage, aka more jealousy/shaming/repeditive conditioning that it's not ok, when it's perfectly fine. Nobody has to follow those stupid social customs.

user who knows about escorts: how do you deal with the fact that the woman you're having intimate sex with has had many other cocks inside her, cocks that belong to men who paid her for sex? I feel like this would belittle both of us.

I'm also aware of the "sugar daddy" phenomenon, and it's very alive where I live. I equally dislike the idea of being a sugar daddy. I don't want to be used for my money, even if it is, especially if it, to be allowed to use someone's body in return. I find the whole affair somewhat disgusting.

Also, to come back to the previous point, I like to think of relationships as something people build together, and in this case, if there are more than 2 people involved, I don't think there's any real building, as you cannot act like a partner to more than one (if only because more than one implies you'll have to choose between one and the other if anything happens).

You job may not allow it, for example a surgeon cant hide his income really.

If it is something you can hide like crypto, sure go ahead. But at that point you are hiding your success so think about is as well.

Sadly there is really no good way out of the dilemma of "does she really love me?" , because a person can convince themselves they like a rich person not because of their wealth but their character. Even though initially they were attracted to wealth.

Love is like a frog in that aspect, once you try to disect and find out how it works it dies..

Why do you care? She's not your partner she's just a one night stand. A very expensive one night stand.

>if only because more than one implies you'll have to choose between one and the other if anything happens
Except it doesn't.

>Nope, feeling jealousy is purely about control and objectification. Neither of which are romantic, ever.
I disagree with this. Imagine a couple: they break up, A still loves B. B now has sex with someone else. A still feels jealousy and suffering even though he/she doesn't control B and expects nothing from B anymore. You can suffer from this without wanting to control what they do, which is why I say it isn't about control. It's about not being loved and literally about your loved one having sex with someone else. I cannot imagine this not being painful if you truly love the person, but it seems, from what you say, that you cannot imagine feeling this way, ever. That is why I assume you have never been in love in the meaning people who have actually mean it.

>I can infer that you've never actually loved any woman, you only wanted to control and keep her for your own entertainment like a child that obsesses over their favorite toy.
No, I have even suggested breaking up because I thought the woman no longer loved me, though I loved her more than anything. I think you misunderstand what I try to explain to you. It's not about possession.

Nope

>You can stop joking now about the objectification of people. Having sex doesn't change them as a person
I don't understand the bit about objectification here. I am talking about the pain induced by a loved one having sex with someone else. You seem unable to imagine this suffering existing without some form of control and obsession, whereas I showed that this suffering can exist without either.

>If having sex outside of a monogamous relationship physically damaged you, there would be a diagnosis for it as a cureable ailment.
If you mean the sex that your loved one has outside of your relationship, it certainly exists. People have killed themselves over things of this matter. That's pretty serious for an ailment.

>Nobody has to follow those stupid social customs.
You seem to think people can only feel jealousy/depression over this because "society" has those as rules. It doesn't seem to occur to you that things may be in reverse: these are general rules because most people feel this way. It only seems stupid if you haven't experienced it, I suppose.

While I can understand your point - because I can imagine not being in love (though loving) - I am unsure you can understand mine from a personal standpoint, because you cannot imagine being in love the way I describe. I think that is fair to say.

>You job may not allow it, for example a surgeon cant hide his income really.
You don't have to say you're a surgeon. You can say you're a nurse instead.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm sure that guy didn't think he was raping me and I didn't exactly scream and start fighting him off. He was my bf, I thought he wouldn't do it or stop when I said that he was hurting me but he didn't.
Like I said that kind of stuff isn't acceptable now but fifteen years ago when it happened things we very different.
Anyway consent is very important to me now. And safe words if you're doing anything kinky.
I don't think you should conceal that you are wealthy from your prospective dates. I know that you're reasonably concerned about women only wanting you based on your wealth, but I also don't think you should start a relationship by lying to your partner.
Perhaps you should only date women that are also wealthy and successful?

Obsession is not love either. Obsession is what drives serial killers, stalkers, anxiety, OCD, ect. No, real love is not obsessive, it is conscious, freely flowing, and fluctuating through time and changes.

>Except it doesn't.
Well, yes, it does. For instance, for anything legal, you can only marry one of them, which means only one of them gets to have the privileges of married people. That's a legal example and you could argue that laws can change. Fair enough.

On the other hand, if one of your partners wants to spend some alone time with you, and the other wants the same, then you cannot choose both, which is the example I mentioned: you will have to choose between them.

That's a basic example but this can get a whole lot worse easily. Again, I suspect this type of relationship only works when people only love each other moderately. Like friends rather than lovers. Friends who have sex, because that's exactly what it seems to be.

What's the difference, for you, in loving a friend you have sex with, and loving someone differently?

Do you not agree that the intensity is different when you care and when you don't care?

Help me understand how you aren't hurt if someone you love shares intimacy with someone else (beyond the stereotype that it's about jealousy, possession, and what "society" dictates).

Any girl you have sex might have had tons of dicks in her, that's your business to handle. I hold escorts in higher regards than people who go clubbing and have one night stands in that regard. Escorts are honest at what they do. And you cant get over the dicking aspect unless she is a virgin really.

My main concern about escorts vs normal girls was this. I hate being lied to and being manipulated, and like i stated before i find escorts honest. I like to spend money on my friends by treating them to dinner as well, for guys they usually treat me back but for girls they might never not. Specially if the relationship is romantic..

Also i agree with having one person. I think everybody has a favourite and polyamarous people are either

Lying and faking it even to themselves

Or

Just very very different we cant understand each other..

>I'm sure that guy didn't think he was raping me
It doesn't matter what people think when they are literally breaking the law. If you said no and he forced you down, that's rape, plain and simple. I know it may not be easy to accept, but yes, you've been raped. There's no way around it.

>Like I said that kind of stuff isn't acceptable now but fifteen years ago when it happened things we very different.
The laws were the same, it was rape just the same. I'm truly sorry. I can't tell you anything else. Rape was never OK or legal, and it never made anyone feel better about themselves.

>I don't think you should conceal that you are wealthy from your prospective dates.
The trip girl ITT only showed interest because I am wealthy. I know lying isn't great, but I believe my soulmate will understand my motivation for that particular lie. I imagine I could see if the woman is in love with me or my money, but as user suggested, women themselves may not be certain of the impact that wealth can have on them.

>Perhaps you should only date women that are also wealthy and successful?
The ones I know tend to be cold and serious, more focused on making money than starting a family and enjoying tenderness, unfortunately. They also aren't many.

And that would be obvious lying, where it will come up with a google search. A serious lie that might be seen on the level of "liking someone for their money but saying it is love". Also think money as one aspect of why you might like someone, a physical feature. Do you have any preferences of hair colour? Why not of financial success or their level of kindness to service staff?

The reaction of jealousy even existing is purely from lack of control. A did not still love B unconditionally, he wanted to be with her and only have sex with her. That's the control that he lacked and reason he is jealous, otherwise he would not be jealous and continue to love her after she had sex with someone else.
I really don't think you're even understanding yourself at this point. You are saying people can be jealous and it not mean anything. No, the jealousy is defined, but the relationship and romantic intrest that A supposedly had doesn't exist.

>Obsession is not love either. Obsession is what drives serial killers,
I find that line of arguing suspicious. You went from "being in love" to "being obsessed", and now it's literally connected to serial killers! What's next, "Hitler did it for love"?

I make a difference between acts and feelings. You confuse the two for your argument's sake. I agree with you on the behaviour: wanting others to be free to be with you or not. Where I disagree is on feelings. I have no control over how I feel if my loved one has sex with someone else. It's not about control: if she wants another man, then that is it and I cannot change it, but why do you think I have a say in how I feel about the matter? I will let her be free, but I cannot avoid the suffering this will cause for me.

It feels like you consider being in love a very bad thing that should be blamed, maybe even punished. It's weird considering you seem to think one should feel unashamed of how they love and who/what they love. Yet if I feel suffering at the idea of my partner having sex with someone else, then all of what you preach goes out the window and I should be stigmatised and compared to serial killers for it.

I really don't think you're wording your question the right way.
Stop associating love with metaphysical speak. We live in this dimension, and no other.

>Any girl you have sex might have had tons of dicks in her, that's your business to handle.
If it was for love or lust, I can handle it. If it was for money, it grosses me out.

>I hold escorts in higher regards than people who go clubbing and have one night stands in that regard. Escorts are honest at what they do
How are clubbing one-night-standers less honest?

>Also i agree with having one person. I think everybody has a favourite and polyamarous people are either
Good question: do polyamorous people not have a favourite? I'm asking Girl.

>And that would be obvious lying, where it will come up with a google search.
I'm not American, my name wouldn't show up, especially if I provide a fake name to begin with. Yes, it is lying, but it's only temporary. You can't tell the truth right away on some things.

>Do you have any preferences of hair colour? Why not of financial success or their level of kindness to service staff?
Because that would be physical attraction, whereas money is way more "out of you" than your actual body. Anyone could have a lot of money, it doesn't change who they are. Sure, neither does hair colour. Point taken.

I just think being loved for your hair is vastly different than being loved for your money, as my hair won't make a difference in that person's life, whereas my money will.

>Why not of financial success or their level of kindness to service staff?
I don't see how financial success can attract someone for anything other than personal interest and gain. Sure, it means success, but not sure if that can ever be disinterested.

>The reaction of jealousy even existing is purely from lack of control.
I don't think a feeling can be controlled. If I feel this suffering, it's not because I don't control the person, it really is because I imagine her having sex with someone else. Even if I chose to leave her (because I don't want a poly relationship, for example), thus maintaining control, I would still suffer immensely.

The way this looks, I would say you have never felt this way and can only imagine that type of suffering as selfish and controlling. I am trying to show you this can happen even when you aren't trying to control someone. I'm not sure I'm convincing you much.

Another question: do you not enjoy being loved by someone exclusively? If not, can you explain it beyond the jealousy/control idea?

How old are you?
It's simply a bad experience that happened to me a long time ago. Lots of women have experiences that are similar or worse. It doesn't mean they're fundamentally different or somehow broken from it.
>The trip girl ITT only showed interest because I am wealthy.
That's only one person in the world.
Perhaps because I am a woman my dating experience is very different from men. Most men want to a have a sexual relationship but do not want the marriage, family or commitment that I want. They often lie in order to achieve this. You have to weed through them and take things slow in order to find the right person. I suppose it's similar for you.
I still don't advocate lying. I would want a soulmate that is always truthful with me, even when it is difficult to do so.

A1. You will never know if they had sex in their life four resources, even the most wholesome looking girl might have gad sex with some guy just because he spent money on her. An expensive gift or a fancy vacation..

A2. Two fold. They go to club with the aim to have sex, so you are just the best they can get there and your looks are much more important than your character. Also intoxication might change peoples behaviour, i never had sex drunk and wouldnt want my partner to be drunk either.

A3. Question not for me anyway..

>I really don't think you're wording your question the right way.
I may not ask the questions you are accustomed to ask yourself, but my questions are worded the way I meant them to be. If you can't answer them, that's OK, I can take that as an answer.

>Stop associating love with metaphysical speak. We live in this dimension, and no other.
I don't understand what this is in answer to. That doesn't answer my question about the absence of suffering when a lover loves another.

>. Most men want to a have a sexual relationship but do not want the marriage, family or commitment that I want.
In my experience, women show less interest for men who want marriage, a family, and commitment. I don't know why.

You're right, I wouldn't want to lie either, and I trust that I will be able to discern a woman's interest in me or my money.

>Well, yes, it does. For instance, for anything legal, you can only marry one of them, which means only one of them gets to have the privileges of married people. That's a legal example and you could argue that laws can change. Fair enough.
Or if you wanted to maintain a more ethical and equal status among your lovers, you could just not get married legally and all wear rings anyway, still filing taxes separately.
>On the other hand, if one of your partners wants to spend some alone time with you, and the other wants the same, then you cannot choose both, which is the example I mentioned: you will have to choose between them.
You also have to work a job and see your family and friends occasionally to keep a social life unless you're a shut in. Do you love your friends, family, and job more than your romantic partner? Not true either. You can allot time to spend with each of your lovers, or you could all make plans to live together or separately.
>That's a basic example but this can get a whole lot worse easily. Again, I suspect this type of relationship only works when people only love each other moderately. Like friends rather than lovers. Friends who have sex, because that's exactly what it seems to be.
Nah, there are polycules (term for polyamorous grouped relationships) that pool resources/income, and have shared parenting for groups of children, Or even ones that run/participate in corporations.
>What's the difference, for you, in loving a friend you have sex with, and loving someone differently?
Long term goals and willingness to make them happen.

>Two fold. They go to club with the aim to have sex, so you are just the best they can get there and your looks are much more important than your character
OK, but isn't that understood by people who go to clubs? I have never been to a club because I cannot dance in front of people, so I have no experience in this. But I assume it is widely known that people go to clubs in part to find a sexual partner. I don't see dishonesty in this.

>I cannot dance
If you went to a club you'd realise that's the norm.

>Or if you wanted to maintain a more ethical and equal status among your lovers, you could just not get married legally and all wear rings anyway, still filing taxes separately.
This implies a few major problems: in my country, at least, if you are married, you will pay way less taxes than if you are single. So, who to marry since you cannot marry both? If one of you has serious problems, only the spouse will get special privileges, such as hospital visits and the likes, or pulling the plug or not if in a coma. Here again, choices must be made and there's no way around it.

The tax difference can go up to over 10k a year, so it's not something you can wave away by sharing rings and pretending.

>You also have to work a job and see your family and friends occasionally to keep a social life unless you're a shut in. Do you love your friends, family, and job more than your romantic partner? Not true either. You can allot time to spend with each of your lovers, or you could all make plans to live together or separately.
OK, that's true. I suppose it's just more complicated but not necessarily very different from allotting time to a single partner among other activities. Point taken on that specific point.

What if a partner wants to see you that very night, and the other one does as well? How connected are your lovers in this scenario, as I imagine they aren't in a relationship with each other?

>Long term goals and willingness to make them happen.
Can't friends have the same long-term goals and willingness to make these happen?

Made me laugh. I can't dance in the sense that I am so self-conscious that I can't begin to try. And yes, I know, "that's why people drink". Even drunk, I can't. I know exactly why I struggle with this though.

A1. Good you are not american, cause the escort agency is Dutch. Also fake names? Really you want to not just hide but give a fake name to your SO? i understand to not info dump directly but come on user..

A2. You can add even being fit ormhandsome to that equation, sorry user but physical aspects are important and cant be escaped from.

For this i need you to read my following sentence carefully. what makes you (you)? Is it just your character, your thoughts, you appereance, your actions or all of them combined? or how it is perceived by others?

Or are you a combination of all above, what you think of yourself, what you do, how it is perceived by others? You are all combined..

A3. Success makes peoples perception change. You cna be the same person, same money but how you got that money will make peopke think differently about you. Not sure how to explain it better.

Question to Girl:

I'm sorry you seem to see me as a possessive individual. I am not. If you and I, hypothetically, were involved in a relationship, if I knew beforehand what your take is about relationships, I could imagine being able to work with it, but that implies not loving you as fully as I would if we were a monogamous relationship. Does that make sense? It doesn't mean I would actively love you less (in behaviour), but it means I would protect myself by reminding myself that you don't consider yourself mine and you don't consider me yours, which means there would be less trust than in a classic relationship. Does that also make sense to you or do you see this as negatively possessive?

The dishonesty part at that point is sex literally only a physical thing or is it actually love making? Do you want to be only desired for your looks and disregarded for your character while your partner is saying i love you after sex, even without knowing your name?

This is in response to you saying "how can you not feel hurt if something doesn't physically hurt you." Without jealousy, obsession, and society telling you it's bad, you would not feel hurt. Period.
Same thing if you damage all your nerves, you would not know of physical pain.

I understand your points. It's not that I want money to mean nothing, it's just that I'd rather my person be the attraction. Hair colour is mine, money isn't mine in the same sense. It's a thing I have, but can lose. If I cut my hair, it loses interest to the person because it isn't mine any more, so to speak, whereas if I transfer my money, it's still valuable because it's money.

My cut hair would only be valuable to someone who loves me, whereas my money would be to anyone who likes money.

>The dishonesty part at that point is sex literally only a physical thing or is it actually love making?
But isn't that understood if you have sex with someone you met that very night at a club?

I really have no experience on clubs: but don't people expect this outcome when they go? isn't going to a club primarily to find a sexual partner? Truly asking, as I have no idea.

>Do you want to be only desired for your looks and disregarded for your character while your partner is saying i love you after sex, even without knowing your name?

If I'm honest, I wouldn't mind, because the person cannot know me this soon, but they can find me attractive, which I would very much enjoy. It's two different things for me, but one doesn't prevent the other. Besides, it's the same way from me to her: I also don't know her.

Hi tripfag, i am your subscriber btw. I disagree with you, i can feel those feelings without the society telling me that. You thinkpeople are sheep? Some people think about the positions they are in and act accordingly. I want to be exclusive not because society tells me to but because i am interested in having something unique with that person. If they do a thing with other people it means i am not held at the highest regard, than i dont want to be in that relationship

>Without jealousy, obsession, and society telling you it's bad, you would not feel hurt. Period.
Society doesn't tell me anything. I'm well aware my life would be easier and less painful if I had your way, trust me. As I said before, I have offered breakups when I loved the person but sensed they didn't anymore, so I am not possessive.

I think what you call obsession is just being in love. Being in love isn't a cultural norm, it's just how I was born. I have no control over it. It's also something you will find in many animals, which shows this isn't a cultural problem.

>Same thing if you damage all your nerves, you would not know of physical pain.
Doesn't that example suggest your model is lacking nerves, so to speak?

If you don't love someone, love can't hurt you. I think that is precisely my point.

This is what I was trying to say. I think being the supreme person for the other is important in a relationship, and is the reason why there cannot be a third partner. There cannot be a "most important person" if you aren't alone. It's more mathematical than "societal".

Opinion: polygamous relationships are more dangerous because of bio hazards like STD's and herpes and such. In such relationships, each person risks everyone else's health. Hard enough to trust one person, but trusting more with your very life seems unrealistic.

Think of snything else physical that shows class/money. fine clothes a decent watch even skincare. Hell even demanor that is only on classy people. at what point you seperate you/from material stuff, only money?

Sometimes it is just to dance and have fun. But how is your looks different than your money? They are both physical features that can be hidden or bring front and center. That was my point, people might seek to likeyou because they convinced ghemselves of that cause your clothes for example. You should decide what you want to be desired for..
same as prvious point, your attractiveness is a product and effected of your material wealth, good skincare clothes, being ar a expensive bar. Sucess not omly brings money but it also brings class where it becomes another thing people differentiate each other with

>Think of snything else physical that shows class/money. fine clothes a decent watch even skincare. Hell even demanor that is only on classy people. at what point you seperate you/from material stuff, only money?
At the point where the thing, if separated from me, still has values. This goes for money, but nothing else in the list.

>But how is your looks different than your money?
The point I made above. You can take my money away from me and it will still be money, but you can't take my looks away from me, as my looks don't mean anything without me.

I can undertsannd there canbe athird person, i just dont believe i can love them both equally and i want to hold somebody in high importance. Want the same for myself too

This is me too btw

>I can undertsannd there canbe athird person, i just dont believe i can love them both equally and i want to hold somebody in high importance. Want the same for myself too

That makes sense to me. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in want to give and receive the same from one's partner, but Girl might disagree.

>This implies a few major problems: in my country, at least, if you are married, you will pay way less taxes than if you are single. So, who to marry since you cannot marry both? If one of you has serious problems, only the spouse will get special privileges, such as hospital visits and the likes, or pulling the plug or not if in a coma. Here again, choices must be made and there's no way around it.

Or you could give the government the finger and not give a shit because your government has told you they don't approve of your finances. You could also leave the country and live somewhere more approving of your lifestyle.
You can also adapt a living will that would include all of your lovers to come to a concensus if you wanted to go that far in final rights. Having it signed and notorized. Choices can be made to deliberately live your life the way you want to. Just because your government says it has to be one way, does not mean you have to bend at the knee.

>What if a partner wants to see you that very night, and the other one does as well?
You either talk to them both individually or get in a group chat and discuss semantics, negotiate, and decide the definitive plan.
>How connected are your lovers in this scenario, as I imagine they aren't in a relationship with each other?
I don't have very high hopes for a polyfidelity arrangment as I used to be a part of a couple(monogamous relationship) gone unicorn hunting (searching for a bisexual female that wanted a sexual and romantic relationship with my ugly af ex).
And sure, we slept with a handful of women and I let him do his thing since I was in college and he was 9-5 ing with night shifts. I tried picking up women on my own, but lesbian dating is exponentially harder than finding men. And that on top of finding my ex attractive, was asking for a miracle.
I have infinitely more confidence in a potential webbing system, where lovers can branch out and explore, have metamours (cont)

I diasgree with you, excdpt for inheritence or lottery, money is essentially sum of your contribution to society, at least how the socidty deems to compensate you for it. Valuable=rich

We can discuss the concept of value too but thats a different thing.

You can dress in cheap clothes, not have your hair done or not wear fine jewelry and these are all money related. Opposite is true too an expensive tailored suit will make you look more attractivr specially on first impressions, what about a fine cologne? What about makeup or other cosmetics such as botox?

Also i can take your looks away from you, i omly need a knife

Look my battery is at 4% so in case i cant reply anymore add me on kik pgtfg

I can help you about escort agency if you want or just for talks really, fine if you dont add me btw

>Or you could give the government the finger and not give a shit because your government has told you they don't approve of your finances.
You misunderstand: being married can mean a tax cut of a dozen thousand or more, since the government supports marriage and families. This is no small amount, which cannot be dismissed by giving the government the finger. I don't see how you can miscontrue this as "the government doesn't approve of your finances", that makes no sense to me. It's about benefitting from a major tax cut given to married couples to make it easier for them to have projects together.

>Just because your government says it has to be one way, does not mean you have to bend at the knee.
It doesn't say anything beyond the fact that getting married will mean they will help you.

>but lesbian dating is exponentially harder than finding men.
Colour me surprised. How is that possible?

>money is essentially sum of your contribution to society,
I don't think getting rich means you contributed to society as a whole, apart from what you pay in taxes. Most people's jobs only benefit very few people overall, and what is most needed is not most paid. Think farmers.

>Also i can take your looks away from you, i omly need a knife
No, you can't. What I meant is, specifically, that my looks are not disassociable from me: you can destroy my looks, yes, but you cannot take them away from me and still have them. You can take my money away from me and you'd still have money. That's the difference.

>Look my battery is at 4% so in case i cant reply anymore add me on kik pgtfg

I don't have kik, sorry. Get charging! I'll probably do this thread again. It's cool.

I won't look into escorts for now, I want to do things more naturally, if I can.

Question to Girl:

You say that loving someone else doesn't mean you love another lover less. If someone loves another exclusively, is that love not more intense? If it is more intense, doesn't that mean that not being loved exclusively is a lesser form of loving?

And another question: why would one need more than one partner? Serious question; provided your lover gives you all you need, why have another? I have no idea what you might respond here, so I hope you take my question seriously. I'm not trolling you.

>I think what you call obsession is just being in love. Being in love isn't a cultural norm, it's just how I was born. I have no control over it. It's also something you will find in many animals, which shows this isn't a cultural problem.
Nope, what you were born with was the ability to form empathetic bonds with someone(s) that cared to you everytime you wet your diaper. The rest of your evolvement past birth has all been external conditioning by society that has told you you can only love one person "romantically" and anything different is bad/illegal/punishable. You identify so heavily with society, you can't separate yourself out of it.
>Doesn't that example suggest your model is lacking nerves, so to speak?
No, because love is social construct, so what do we attatch to constructs to further define them? Conceptual elements, typically one(s) considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence.
>If you don't love someone, love can't hurt you. I think that is precisely my point.
Except what I said was more like:
The concepts that are not romantic do not have any association to romance. Using unromantic concepts to define love inherintly stops love from being loving.

That sum of money meaning something to you could mean nothing to a rich money launderer. btw

>The rest of your evolvement past birth has all been external conditioning by society that has told you you can only love one person "romantically"
This isn't how it works, actually. My profession heavily deals with this sort of thing and I have studied it for over a decade. You are in the wrong here. Not everything is external conditioning, and falling in love is not a capacity that happens because you were told so. If anything, your family circle has more to do with your type of attachment (in relationships), but even that does nothing for whether or not you will fall in love.

>You identify so heavily with society, you can't separate yourself out of it.
You are awfully wrong on that count. I have given you several good reasons to drop it but you maintain it for some reason. As I told you: I can imagine being in a relationship of your type, provided some prudence. So that should show you I wasn't brainwashed by society. The only difference is I would never let myself fall in love with you in that type of arrangements. I don't know what you'll make of that, but I don't think you fully understand many of my points.

>No, because love is social construct,
Love existed long before society, and exists in animals also, who have no society of the meaning you designate. I think you think love is a construct because you don't feel it the way most people feel it. I am not sure you'd be willing to accept that version.

>Conceptual elements, typically one(s) considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence.
The empirical evidence for love is everything you feel and experience within your body about it, and it is a lot more than mere sexual attraction. I assume these things are not known to you, or you would not have such a negative view of being in love, and would not believe love was a result of brainwashing.

>The concepts that are not romantic do not have any association to romance. Using unromantic concepts to define love inherintly stops love from being loving.
Sure, but none of that matters if you don't actually know what it is like to be in love, which I am more and more convinced that this is your case. I have known others who said almost exactly the same as you say, and it makes perfect sense, from your point of view, that you would think of most people's experience with love as something vile and brainwashed, if you haven't experienced being in love. In some ways, I envy you; in others, I feel sorry for you. You are being spared both the highs and lows of love.

Yes, but I don't understand what this connects with in my post. My point was that getting married can mean a tremendous boost to a relationship and help with projects such as children and a house. If you are very rich, a tax cut may not mean as much, but I doubt a rich person would politely decline the possibility to save 20% of their income over a year, which would mean a significantly greater sum. Taxes are done proportionally here. The fact that the sum I mentioned would be nothing to a rich person is actually invalid, since that sum would be much greater to a much richer person.

Another question to Girl:

I assume you see relationships as resources, mostly, and not as romantic engagements; in other words, relationships must give you something for your investment (correct me if I am wrong). Given that, I assume you would take the best from your lovers; what if one of them wanted exclusivity, for the main reason that he loved you and that it made him suffer not to be your exclusive lover (or, in other words, he suffered from not receiving from you what he gives you)? What would you tell him, other than accusing him of selfishness and brainwashing?

Ok back, now with a whooping 6% battery!

I meant more of how the society sees valur in yout your work. People value celebrities, they make money, people value football players they make money and so on.

About money, you are right i cant take your looks. But i was more meaning of acquiring it actually. I can acquire good clothes, better clothes better attire, or higher coaches which sill teach me how to speak better or psychologists to go over my insecurities. Money or in this case resources csn improve you or vica versa too, self improvement can bring you money.

It is ffine if you dont want to do escorts now. My story is actually like really young with them too, i used their services initially only a few months ago, to loose my v card. I have used their services several times since then but thats mostly in an attempt to catch up from a really delayed start. The kik invitation stands, if you ever want to download the app i can be your guide a bit since for my adventures i genuinely just researched it proper. Most likrly harder than i ever studièd :)

>You say that loving someone else doesn't mean you love another lover less. If someone loves another exclusively, is that love not more intense?
No
If it is more intense, doesn't that mean that not being loved exclusively is a lesser form of loving?
It's not.
>And another question: why would one need more than one partner?
Different and sometimes conflicting, but also very doable desires, goals, and hobbies to share and cooperate on.

Serious question; provided your lover gives you all you need, why have another?
That's physically impossible to me as my wants and desires are mostly radically different in a few different ways. I also subscribe to the idea that perfect humans do not exist, so inherintly with every relationship there will be good parts and bad parts that I will accept both sides of so long as they do the same for me.

Example: I'm a foodie and I prefer to try elegant dishes by either making them myself of going to restaraunts.
Boyfriend A: shares this intrest and enjoys meals out with me, picking my brain and genuine opinions, he has no allergies.
Boyfriend B: Has a tactile sensory issue with a lot of foods, as well as some debilitating allergies. I do not love him less because of these, it just makes going out a bit more difficult. We still do, and even to some chic restaraunts, but it takes infinitely more planning and consideration.
Now, I'm also an avid gamer and my tastes are very weird.
Boyfriend A: Mostly likes to play RPG's that I hate at random freetime intervals, we try to establish a game night a few times a month to play something mutual, but his time between work and side buisness and other girlfriend is greatly diminished. If I go up there I can corner him into playing a turn based strategy game we have in common with his roommate, but otherwise he never thinks of it.
Boyfriend B: Has a set schedule of when he does his main mmorpg that I am able to give him time for. The rest of his free time he is investing into (cont)

Do tell about your experience with escorts. I am curious.

>No
>It's not.
You're not explaining why, though.

>That's physically impossible to me as my wants and desires are mostly radically different in a few different ways.
I don't understand. What needs do you have that one man cannot fulfill?

>That's physically impossible to me as my wants and desires are mostly radically different in a few different ways. I also subscribe to the idea that perfect humans do not exist,
So is that a reason to have more than one man? Instead of accepting people's flaws as they accept yours? I don't understand. It sounds like your reason is precisely the opposite of accepting people's flaws: "Since you are not perfect, I will find someone else who can compensate for your flaws." Isn't that selfish?

He is investing into teaching me his tips and secrets on a story based game with loads of complex lore. He genuinely enjoys watching me play and struggle, he's played it several times over and can't get enough of it. We also cuddle and chat endlessly about this game and how we bond over it. It's our thing.

>Example: I'm a foodie and I prefer to try elegant dishes by either making them myself of going to restaraunts.
>Boyfriend A: shares this intrest and enjoys meals out with me, picking my brain and genuine opinions, he has no allergies.
>Boyfriend B: Has a tactile sensory issue with a lot of foods, as well as some debilitating allergies. I do not love him less because of these, it just makes going out a bit more difficult. We still do, and even to some chic restaraunts, but it takes infinitely more planning and consideration.
>Now, I'm also an avid gamer and my tastes are very weird.
>Boyfriend A: Mostly likes to play RPG's that I hate at random freetime intervals, we try to establish a game night a few times a month to play something mutual, but his time between work and side buisness and other girlfriend is greatly diminished. If I go up there I can corner him into playing a turn based strategy game we have in common with his roommate, but otherwise he never thinks of it.
>Boyfriend B: Has a set schedule of when he does his main mmorpg that I am able to give him time for. The rest of his free time he is investing into (cont)
This is all very technical and the same happens in regular relationships. I think, as I said before, that the main difference between you and me is that you don't fall in love. You are attracted to people and you like them, but you do not create the bond that love creates, and that is why you think it's a social construct: because you don't feel it yourself and that's why you came to believe it was, in fact, inexistent. I can only assure you of your error in that it is very real and not a social construct.

Do you expect any of your men to provide for you as a mother, and for your children, in these relationships? Would one of your men give everything to you when you only give them a part? I wonder. Do they all have other girlfriends as well?

here, have the somewhat over the top detailed and a bit cringey greentext i wrote, pic related..

Attached: Helena pgtfg.png (1174x4096, 1.65M)

Another noteworthy one would be the german 40 year old german redhead which had a killer body that could knock any 20 sth out of the water, but i didnt greentext that..

These are both me, also pic related, same bracelet from the german adventure

Attached: Bracelet.jpg (3264x2448, 2.46M)

Thanks. Will read.

>somehow this will make sense after I read the greentext

You spend money to make money but you don't spend money to make sex. You HAVE money to make sex; throwing it out the door is the opposite of keeping it. As you probably already know, a wealthy person's habit is to see more money coming in than going out. Dating only changes that for proles who think massive unpayable debt is normal for everyone who reproduces.

I'll assume that MAKING money isn't a problem, so onto the rest.

Physical attraction is the reality that too few people are willing to believe. Lift, run, eat plant matter, go outside, do physical things. The other reason for doing more stuff more places is that this makes you more interesting, which is exactly what the typical person is not. There is nothing to gain by being uglier than you need to be.

At the same time, know that "physical attraction" does not mean sticking a bunch of pointless crap onto your outfit. Strength comes from sweat, knowledge comes from study, expertise comes from practice. People are looking for those things, they're not looking for bling or shoes worth murder. A small amount of real strength is worth more than a large amount of posing.

I'm bald, but always remember don't discount input from younger folks too. Taking relationship advice from people who aren't in relationships is little different from taking quicksand advice from people who aren't in quicksand. Don't be in too much of a hurry, even if you're bald too.