lulu24 wrote:
> of course i would.
> as long as he's faithful, who cares?

Exactly! It shouldn't matter to whom someone is attracted, as long as
they are also attracted to you and faithful to you. Provided you are
compatible on various levels and your relationship is built on trust and
honesty, it shouldn't matter if one or both genders exite your mate.

And, psychologically speaking, we all have bisexual tendencies to some
degree — no matter how negligible. The balance for most people is
either very close to the heterosexual side or the homosexual side of the
sexual preference spectrum, but for reasons of biology, chemistry, and
psychology, nobody is 100% one way or the other (though that doesn't
mean people who have a slight innate desire for someone of their own
gender necessarily ever act on or even entertain those feelings). And
physiological development is so similar between males and females that
it's a wonder bisexuality isn't much more common.

Of course, there are probably a lot of religiously conservative people
here who consider same-gender sexual relations to be immoral. And
that's fine; they are entitled to their opinion just as I'm entitled to
mine. I haven't seen any posts from them on this topic yet — perhaps
they are all still in the Religion Chat debating the viability of
evolution.

davinci1952 and killxherxoff (and anyone else rejected by that dating
site):

Regarding eHarmony.com, you may find the following site interesting:

http://consumerist.com/consumer/eharmony/

What tech support and all documentation fails to mention is that
Girlfriend 7.0 is actually _trial_ software. If it is not upgraded to
Wife 1.0 within an arbitrary length of time, Girlfriend 7.0 will expire.
The exception is if you can get your hands on the extremely rare
Girlfriend 7.0.1 patch, which bypasses the trial expiration. When
properly installed, Girlfriend 7.0.1 will share in a larger percentage
of resources (e.g., the Time module) with other systems — similar to
Wife 1.0, but without requiring full control over said systems. It is
important to note that Girlfriend 7.0.1 is incompatible with Girlfriend
8.0 unless you install the Freaky Girlfriend expansion pack (which is
even more rare than the 7.0.1 patch). Girlfriend 7.0.1 is more stable
than Girlfriend 7.0, and much more flexible than Wife 1.0. Best of all,
if there are irreconcilable incompatibilities between Girlfriend 7.0.1
and Your Life (versions 2.5.1 — 3.9.9), Girlfriend 7.0.1 can be
uninstalled with relative ease. If you are running a version of Your
Life 4.0 or higher, it may no longer be compatible with a new version of
Girlfriend 7.0.1. In such cases, the upgrade to Wife 1.0 may be
necessary. If you can get a pre-owned copy of Wife 1.0, it seems it can
sometimes be installed to operate similarly to Girlfriend 7.0.1.

Pizza! Friday night or otherwise, nothing beats a good NY Pizzeria
cheese slice.

I'm sure you knew starting this thread that you were opening a huge can
of worms, right?

Okay, I used PCs almost exclusively in high school and college — pretty
much because that's all that were available to me. So, I was
indoctrinated. My first job after graduation was at a Mac-based office
back in the days of Mac OS 8.

Since then, I'm a total Mac convert. I've had to do networking and
maintenance on both, and I've had the best luck by far with Macs —
especially since Mac OS X (v. 10.2).

But, in the interest of fairness, here's my nickel-show comparison:

Macs
- more efficient: perform the equivalent task in fewer keystrokes and
less time
- cheaper: cost of ownership is less over the life of the product, on
average
- safer: zero viruses, and almost no malware

Windows-Based PCs
- more software: games and specialized business software are more
plentiful
- cheaper: initial cost is generally less if you require less overall
power
- better support: more third-party companies support PC installations

My suggestion is to just buy a Mac if you don't require specialized
software or do a lot of gaming. If you occasionally need a specialized
software application (PeachTree accounting software, MS Access, etc.) or
enjoy an occasional game you can't find for Mac, buy a Mac and install
Parallels or Boot Camp for your Windows needs. If you need frequent
access to PC-only software or games, buy a PC. I don't know a lot about
PC companies or the newest computer models, however, so if you need a
PC, you may want a little guidance from a PC expert about what to
purchase.

I purchased a 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac with a 20" screen running
Mac OS X 10.4.9 and loaded with 2 GB of RAM. I love it! The screen is
incredibly clear and bright and the speed is outstanding. At the time
several months ago, it was the best value for the power and the money.
At work, I'm running a Mac Pro with two dual-core 2.66 GHz Xeon
processors (i.e., quad-core) and 2 GB of RAMM. I notice no discernable
difference between my home iMac and my work Mac Pro — but upgrading the
Mac Pro would be considerably easier due to it's easy-access design.

You said you were looking at buying a laptop. If I were looking at a
laptop, I would probably buy the 15-inch 2.33 GHz MacBook Pro, but if
you don't need dedicated video memory you will save a ton by going with
the regular MacBook (of which I'd suggest the 2.0 GHz model, but with
the memory maxed to 2 GB).

And, to echo a sentiment I read here from massagetrade, one of my
coworkers who works in IT told me the other day that he's thinking of
switching over full-time to a Mac at work. He says he can do all the
networking things he needs (and apparently Windows Vista has some
unpredicatable networking quirks that he hasn't yet been able to
overcome) in addition to being able to do everything else he does.

Happy hunting!

Okay, the very first thing I think of is:

whoo-hoo-hoo WHEE-hee-hee-hee WHEE-hee-hee-hee
WHOO-hoo-HOO-hoo-hoo
whoo-hoo-hoo WHEE-hee-hee-hee WHEE-hee-hee-hee
whoo-hoo-hoo

(Sorry, it's tough to whistle on a keyboard.)

Well, CSG, any time you want to put that philosophy into practice, here
I am!

This is a really interesting topic. I'm glad you put "Soul Mate Or No
Soul Mate" in the title, because I think there is a lot to be said on
that aspect alone.

We live in a society that glorifies love at first sight, true love, soul
mates, etc. These notions tend to take key components — like hard work
and personal growth in the relationship — completely out of the picture.
It also sets people up to fail and to feel like they've lost their "one
and only" when a relationship doesn't work out.

Relationships are work. Hard work. People who fail to realize that
they need to be _active_ participants in the growth of their
relationships are doomed to have failed or dysfunctional relationships
(romantic or otherwise).

The notion that there is such a thing as a "soul mate" is romanticized
Hollywood drivel. So, how many "soul mates" does a person have over the
years? Just one? A series of soul mates? I don't buy into some
mystical connection that rules over my love life, and I think it's
unhealthy when people do so because it removes from them a sense of
personal responsibility for their lives, actions, and decisions.

What are the components of a successful relationship? I think it comes
down to three specific aspects which tend to bleed into one another:
lust, love, and personality compatibility. Lust is that initial
attraction, the feeling that we can't let the other person out of our
sight for even a moment for fear of missing even one iota of their
brilliance. Lust is often confused for love, but quite frequently leads
to love. But lust is fleeting, rearing its head now and again
throughout the relationship after the initial obsession has passed. I
would say that the key difference between the two is that (despite what
many people say) lust is blind to imperfections, and love recognizes and
fully accepts those imperfections. Personality compatibility is what
lets people live together and share their lives together for the
long-term, growing through the good times and the bad, sharing in
day-to-day interests. It's this compatibility that strengthens the love
people have for one another.

What we see too often is people who draw _no_ distinction between these
three. Young people in particular lack the experience and wisdom to
know that lust isn't the same as love. More mature and experienced
people tend to not make that mistake, but do mistake a deep love for a
genuine compatibility, and that's when many people realize that they
have "irreconcilable differences" and get divorced. The love often
remains, but there's too little they have in common to make the
relationship last. Life and love are hard, aren't they?

One other thing that's important is circumstance. The other three are
internal to the relationship, but there's an external component that
cannot be overlooked. Family, illness, financial hardship, etc. can all
play a role and in some cases (but not all) are insurmountable.

In any case, the concept that "love conquers all" is complete hooey.
Sometimes love is enough to overcome a hurdle, and sometimes not. That
doesn't mean we don't still strive for good relationships, but it's rare
that a relationship ever resembles a _perfect_ union. If there were
such a thing as a "perfect union" and there were never any work, never
any pain, never any problems — wouldn't that cheapen the relationship
and the love? It wouldn't mean much if it's never put to a real-world
test, and we would be cheating ourselves out of the remarkable ability
to prove our love in meaningful ways (e.g., supporting a loved one in
time of great difficulty or sorrow, forgiving a contrite partner for
causing us pain, etc.). It is during those times that we have the
opportunity to shine and really grow our love for one another.

simplyupsidedown:

I think that you'll find the people who are truly interested in living a
polyamorous lifestyle are extremely secure in themselves, in their
partners, and in the relationships. I don't think you can be successful
and have any serious doubts about your love, their love, the bond of the
relationships, etc. And I think that's probably why it's very rare.
People are too often racked with all sorts of insecurities that it's not
healthy to move beyond the struggle of having a single intimate partner.
In a perfect, idyllic relationship, such love would be possible and
freely given (whether sexual or not). But we live in the real world,
where most people are incapable of such strong intimate emotion and
absence of jealousy.

If you ever find your way into a love triangle as you described, be sure
to let us know how it worked from a first-hand perspective.

Hmm... a true love triangle, huh simplyupsidedown?

Abracadabra:

"But I see women falling for jerks all the time, so I’m not convinced
that women do have a will of their own."

Okay, point taken. The same could be said for a lot of guys who end up
with horrible women, though. And there's an important distinction
between being forced to do what someone else wants, and being able to do
what you want (even if the reason for your motivations are obfuscated).

hulett3:

If you've forgiven her (and after a scant five days, I applaud you for
that), that's half of your battle. The other half is complicated. Is
she contrite? Why did she stray? People usually cheat when they aren't
getting something important from their primary relationship. That
doesn't excuse her actions, but may be important in determining if you
can salvage your relationship. If your relationship is missing
something essential that can be still be provided, work on it. If
what's missing is something you cannot provide or is something that
simply doesn't exist, there's no future and you'll need to move on.

I don't suggest therapy lightly, but a few serious sessions with a
marriage counselor may be helpful for both of you.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Hi Abracadabra.

You're speaking strictly of polygamy — "the practice or custom of having
more than one wife or husband at the same time," but the question deals
with polyamory, which is "the philosophy or state of being in love or
romantically involved with more than one person at the same time."
[Definitions courtesy of the New Oxford American Dictionary]

The distinction probably doesn't change your view anyway, but I thought
it was an important distinction to make. The relationships can be very
different.

You stated, "If polygamy were commonplace then murder might become
commonplace too." I disagree. That makes an invalid correlation
between very different activities. There is no reason to believe that
acceptance of sexual and emotional liberties will be a slippery slope to
acceptance of murder.

I also disagree with your description of "hoarding women." Polyamory
can just as easily describe a woman who is intimate with more than one
man in her life. Additionally, "hoarding" makes it sound like the women
have no will of their own in this situation. It's not a harem.

Sorry, I don't mean to beat up on you Abracadabra. I'm just rambling.

Most people who are polyamorous will tell you that sexual intimacy is
secondary (and sometimes nonexistent) in one or more of their
relationships. The overarching concept or philosophy, as I understand
it, is to have an extreme openness with more than one person on a deeply
intimate level, understanding that one partner may have some but not all
of the attributes or personality traits you crave, but another partner
may.

For instance, a woman may like the intellectual side of one man and the
passionate/spontaneous side of another. Practitioners of polyamory
don't feel as if they have to compromise to have intimacy on every
level. But certainly these relationships go far beyond friendship.
And, of course, such personal closeness often manifests as sexual
intimacy.

I wouldn't say that it's nothing more than having a f*** buddy, and it
certainly is much more than swinging. I will say, however, that I don't
think polyamory works well in the early stages of a relationship. For
the first few years, there's a newness and a bonding that I don't think
can be shared effectively. However, new relationships of that caliber
can sometimes be fostered later if the first relationship is especially
strong, loving, and trusting.

I think very few people are strong enough emotionally to make this work,
and even those who are are likely in a relationship with someone who is
not. It's certainly not for everyone. I don't know if I could partake
in a polyamorous lifestyle, but I have strong views about personal
freedom and sexual liberation, so I see nothing inherently wrong with
it. I say, live and let live.

Izzie:

It's amazing what difference one letter can make:

"ok.. im gunna start a thread to suction you off... that way the weding
will be paid for"

Suction? Hmm... sounds interesting...

CSG: Yeah, there's a little freak in us all. And for any of the ladies
who want a little more freak in them, here I am.
*kidding*

Safe and consensual is all that matters (and involving no animals or
children, of course). In this case, it wasn't consensual.

I think people need to be clearer with their intentions before jumping
into bed. At the very least, ask something like, "How about we get out
some handcuffs and a whip?" before just springing them on someone at the
last minute. And some mention of a rubber ducky should probably be made
before you find yourself spread eagle, wondering where that ducky is
going.


A few posters have stated that the activities iStallion described were
"crazy" — implicitly defining crazy to mean "anything they themselves
find distasteful." But the world is full of people with varied ideas of
what is exciting or permissible in the bedroom. Variety is, after all,
the spice of life. What works for one person won't necessarily work for
the next, and that's okay. Nothing about handcuffs and whips (and
rubber duckies) is necessarily unsafe (and most whips for sex play do
little more than lightly sting anyway). The word "crazy" gets thrown
about way too often, when there are better ways of stating that one,
personally, doesn't enjoy a particular practice or activity.

Do tell, PK!

Hi whisper.

Try the following site:

http://www.w3.org/html/

I would suggest buying an intro book (perhaps through Amazon.com, where
you can compare reviews, etc.), for HTML and CSS. CSS is a good way of
styling your pages while keeping your markup to a minimum (which can
make edits easier). You can also use CSS for positioning on a page, but
that probably doesn't mean much to you at this stage.

Anyway, HTML is pretty easy to learn. CSS is more complex if you get
into much layout, but it's worth the effort to learn.

Good luck.

Jean:

"Occasional" wasn't to be taken quite so literally. I meant it in the
way of "infrequent" but possibly more than once. If I were in a serious
relationship and on three separate occasions we hit a real rough patch,
and my partner cheated on me during those times, I don't consider that
the same as if she goes out every Tuesday night and screws her boss.
Certainly, it would be better if nobody every cheated — I'm all for
fidelity and maintaining the trust between two people — but I also try
to be understanding. If a situation can't be fixed, however, then it
can't be fixed and both people should move on. I definitely don't
advocate staying in a bad relationship.