#Types of nonmonogamy

[paradee-real]

I think every polycule should add an evil partner, who HATES the others, to keep it interesting and spicy

[polyamzeal]

[antlershade]

i'm glad people are finally standing up and saying its not cool to put others down for being polyamorous or wanting things to be better for polyam people...when i think about the future, the fact that i can't get legally married to more than one person always complicates things.

i want to have a kid one day, which seems sadly unlikely for many reasons. but one of them is that kid may have three or more parents, and pretty much every school would give a kid a hard time for that (note: you may not know my Backstory but do NOT tell me 'oh you can just homechool'. for a multitude of reasons i am NOT doing that). Would I have to have our kid call one (or more) of my partners a 'babysitter' or something, when they get picked up from school ? i dont want to do that, augh !

society is built in ways that are meant to dissuade non-traditional families from even happening. things are very difficult for people in triads and polycules especially as we get older. i think advocacy for the rights of non-traditional families would be beneficial to everyone who doesn't fit in the cishetero, monogamous norm.

[pinene]

It's literally just like. If monogamy and labeling your connections works for you then literally do what you want it's your life. But I cannot stand the vein of queers on here who are absolutely indistinguishable from like, small town puritans when it comes to sex and romance and relationships lmfao

[rivetgoth]

im well aware that im so deep in a rabbit hole of my own lifestyle that this is not the way most people feel but honestly it is actually kinda baffling how hostile the concept of nonmonogamy makes people... dare i say i think that it actually makes more sense to be able to comprehend that romance sex and relationships are a fluid and immaterial thing and the different relationships we have can take on an endless number of forms... that monogamy is a construct that barely even successfully categorizes one type of relationship, let alone the majority of them or the "norm"...

like i could take this moment to get into the more radical theoretical work of pointing out that the concept of [heterosexual] monogamous marriage as an institution has historically really been about property ownership, nation building, reproductive control, etc, and to cling to it as the "natural" state of things is point blank regressive, but more than that I just feel that like... monogamy almost feels like it should be seen as the more uncommon out-there thing to me lol; to make the active decision to commit urself romantically and sexually to a single person genuinely feels like much more intense of a lifestyle decision akin to stuff like fulltime BDSM relationships than to live a nonmonogamous life in many ways to me. and mind you "out-there" does NOT have a negative connotation in my vernacular. i am not calling monogamy (the consensual relationship arrangement, not the institution) regressive at all. i think it is genuinely a wonderful act of devotion for those who derive meaning from it. it's just wild how many people on the flip side seem incapable of comprehending nonmonogamy at all and cannot approach it with anything but the worst faith knee jerk reaction and feel some desperate need to justify themselves and their desire for monogamy.

i guess this goes in tandem with my belief that monogamy, and the binary between monogamy and nonmonogamy, is as much a social construct as... anything else, and that all individuals and the relationships they arrange exist on a sort of spectrum; everybody has different limits for what is or is not acceptable behavior. a nonmonogamous couple might have a limit like "kissing anyone is fine but before you have sex with someone else you need to tell me" or "I need to meet them before you have sex with them," but a monogamous couple will have just as many spoken and unspoken rules. "it's okay to express attraction to celebrities / fictional characters," "it's okay to jerk off to things other than me," "it's okay to watch porn as long as you aren't paying any individual adult content creators," couples who come up with their "exceptions" (ex. "we're monogamous but if my GF met Chris Hemsworth I'd let her" kinda shit, waaaaay more common than you'd think), not to mention then things like closed triads which function much more similarly to a traditional monogamous relationship in many ways, friends with benefits and other non-romantic sexual arrangements, non-sexual life partners, swingers and wife swappers—couples that might otherwise call themselves monogamous but who engage in specific nonmonogamous activities—etc... like monogamy only exists as much as the individuals in the relationship choose for it to and call it as such, yknow?

[new-berry]

Are Kinks Hereditary? What Science Says About the Genetics of Desire

Glamour September 2022

In short, maybe! Your genetic makeup is one of several factors that could influence your sexual interests.

Are kinks hereditary or learned? The short answer is both.

The genetics of sexual attraction and desire is a deeply underfunded field of research. Still, there’s growing evidence to suggest our genes might play a much larger role in the development of our erotic selves than previously thought.

What is a kink? Kink vs. fetish?

A kink is any type of nonmainstream sexual interest, according to Justin Lehmiller, PhD, research fellow at the Kinsey Institute and scientific advisor to sex-toy retailer Lovehoney. A fetish is a specific subtype of kink defined by a heightened fascination with a certain object, body part, or bodily fluid. In other words, fetishes tend to have a sensory component wherein people are drawn to the feel, taste, smell, or look of a particular thing. “All fetishes are kinks, but not all kinks are fetishes,” Dr. Lehmiller explains.

Author and “gonzo anthropologist” Katherine Gates has devoted her career to the study of sexual subcultures. Speaking from a nonacademic point of view, Gates offers up another way of understanding the distinction between kink and fetish: Kink describes the use of props and role play in erotic interaction, but those elements aren’t required in order to get off. Moreover, kinky encounters don’t necessarily involve sex—the experience can be gratifying with or without it. Fetish, on other hand, connotes a sexual interest that is “extremely narrow and fixed.” And this fetish has to be incorporated in order for the person to get off and feel sexually fulfilled by an encounter.

Gloria Brame, PhD, is a sexologist, sex therapist, and self-described fetishist best known for her work in the area of BDSM. “For me, the fetish is about feeling really comforted,” Dr. Brame says. “That’s how I feel when a fetish manifests.”

Okay, but are kinks hereditary?

We don’t have concrete proof that our genetic makeup is directly tied to our sexual interests. At least, not yet. But it’s not outlandish to suggest that some people may be genetically predisposed to developing kinks and fetishes. It’s relatively well-documented that personality is to some degree heritable. Certain traits tend to run in families. And as Dr. Lehmiller can attest, from having surveyed thousands of people on the subject, our sexual fantasies can be read, at least in part, as a reflection of our personalities. Extraverts, for instance, were especially drawn to group sex and nonmonogamy fantasies. The fantasies of highly conscientious individuals tended to be more detailed, with a particular emphasis on sex in unique settings like the beach. Dr. Lehmiller also found a pattern of interest in kink and BDSM among those with a penchant for sensation seeking, another personality trait shown to have some genetic basis. Often, high sensation seekers require a more potent stimulus in order to experience arousal or to reach orgasm.

“With people who are high sensation seekers, in some of the research that’s been connected, we see that their dopamine receptors aren’t quite as sensitive as other people,” Dr. Lehmiller explains. “So they just sort of require this higher level or higher threshold of excitement to get the same sexual thrills that other people do.”

That said, it’s important to remember that our erotic interests are the product of many factors. On the biological side, those factors can include our genetic predispositions, unique brain chemistry, and the way our bodies are laid out.

“For some people, nipples are extraordinarily sensitive,” Dr. Lehmiller says. “For other people, there’s just no sensation whatsoever. And if your body just happens to have that heightened level of sensitivity, you might be very drawn to various forms of nipple play including more intense BDSM versions of it with nipple clamps and so forth. So I think part of it is that general sensitivity in different parts of our body. That could also have a genetic component to it.”

Psychological factors such as our personalities, previous experiences, and general attitudes toward sex represent another piece of the puzzle. And there are environmental factors to consider—the cultural context that, in part, determines the partners we choose and the opportunities available to us.

Whenever we’re talking about sexual interests, we need to talk about it from a biopsychosocial perspective,” Dr. Lehmiller says. “Two people can develop the same sexual interest for very different reasons, depending on the confluence of all of these factors.”

How are kinks and fetishes created?

Many people can pinpoint a specific childhood experience as the source of their kink or fetish. For some, it feels like a fact of life from birth. Others find their kinks later in life through solo or partnered exploration. In Dr. Brame’s experience, younger generations are becoming aware of their kinks earlier in life thanks to the internet. But in some cases, the culture of silence and shame around sexual kinks can delay the discovery process by decades.

“You don’t necessarily realize who you are until you’re in your teens or maybe even your 20s,” Dr. Brame says. “Or maybe even your 50s, not because it’s totally out of the blue. But you don’t realize what kink is or what it is to be kinky. Or that some of your private sexual fantasies actually align with kink.”

Often the kink’s emotional and sexual resonance is reinforced through masturbation.

“We know that the connection between the smell centers of the brain and the memory centers of the brain and the emotional centers of the brain are very close,” Gates says. “And so things that we would consider to be classic kinks, like a foot fetish—or rubber or leather or things that are sensorially evocative, especially through smell—can become connected with emotional content and memories to form a kind of cycle where you smell it and you have this stimulus in this memory that’s very emotional. You might reinforce that through, say, masturbation to the point where it becomes a very firm pathway in your brain.”

But Gates believes some people are primed to develop a kink or fetish under the right conditions.

“I interviewed this wonderful guy who considered himself a macrophile,” Gates says. “He liked to fantasize about giant women. And he said, ‘Nature loads the gun and nurture pulls the trigger.’ I like that metaphor because it sort of explains how that works—that you can be primed biologically and neurologically to be ready for it to happen.”

Is kink a sexual orientation?

Dr. Brame feels strongly that kink isn’t a hobby—it’s a legitimate sexual identity. Throughout her life, relationships that didn’t align with her kinks would inevitably fail. The kink was never explicitly discussed or cited as the reason for the breakup—that discovery would come later. But in retrospect, it makes sense that certain power dynamics weren’t tenable for her.

“I was actually leading a really mainstream kind of life. But I couldn't make vanilla relationships work,” Dr. Brame recalls. “They came and they went and they came and they went…. When I found out I was into BDSM, I was really thrilled. I never looked back. I only had kinky partners, and that led to a marriage of 32 years.”

Dr. Lehmiller says the data supports both possibilities. For some, it is a leisure activity. For others, an interest in kink can have “very deep roots.”

“It’s very persistent, it’s enduring, it has some of the other features that a sexual orientation does,” Dr. Lehmiller says. “It’s not malleable. I think for some people, there does seem to be the sense that kink is more of a sexual orientation for them. But again, I don’t know that we fully understand exactly why that is.”

[switchycalamity]

🎀 PINNED POST 🎀

About me:

- You can call me Calamity

- I identify as both sapphic and achillean because I'm genderfluid and pan, and that's just how my gender/sexuality works. So you'll see both WLW and MLM type posts here. I also might refer to myself as a boy some days and a girl some. Everything I do is a little bit queer.

- I'm a sideblog, so I can't follow anyone/have mutuals on this account.

- I do make content on a website that rhymes with shmansly ;)

Kinks: Clowns, biting/marking, double penetration, triple penetration, degradation, praise, somnophilia, handcuffs/restraint/bondage, clothed sex/lingerie, monsterfucker (specifically vampires, anthros, and demons), cosplay/costume, roleplay, petplay, choking, overstimulation, impact play, voyeurism, exhibitionism, threesome/group sex, waxplay, hand kink, voice kink, anal, leather, latex, edging, CNC. Probably others. I am a switch, so most of these go both ways.

Hard limits: Yelling, piss, scat, ageplay, raceplay, DDLG, spit, any kind of genital torture (such as CBT), gore, vore, figging. Probably others. Will update if they come to mind.

My general DNI criteria: Minors (seriously, this side of Tumblr isn't safe for you, please leave), TERFs, exclusionists, SWERFs, those that are anti-nonmonogamy, and people that "don't believe in aftercare." I will block as I please if I see something that makes me uncomfortable, even if someone doesn't necessarily fit the DNI.

[ladylilithprime]

The Tales Grow Taller On Down The Line

Rated: M

Word count: 21582

Summary: When Bobby Singer got the call from Dean Winchester - "This case is weird even for us and Sam's been compromised, we need help!" - he had expected the hunt to be unusual but still fairly straightforward. Being introduced to Loki, the Norse god of mischief and patron of tricksters, and being told the pagan was Sam's soulmate? Definitely not so straightforward!

Warnings/tags: Soulmate AU, episode rewrite, S2Ep15: Tall Tales, references to canon off-screen violence and noncon/dubcon, descriptions of off-screen minor character death, canon derailment, discussion of Sam's powers, references to demon blood, angels are dicks, canceling the Apocalypse, Gabriel is Loki, Loki is a trickster, Bobby knows and accepts the risks, brief mention of dog death by old age, Dean is both a porn fiend and a prude, mentions of nonmonogamy and polyamory, Gabriel's nicknames

@spnsabrielbang in co-conspiracy with @alexiescherryslurpy ! (Art post here!)

THE MOTEL ROOM just outside Springfield University was stifling with the tense, angry silence that practically vibrated between its occupants. The first of them was pacing irritably in front of the windows, pausing every so often to glance up and either glare furiously at one of the other occupants or cast furtively worried looks at the third. The object of his ire lounged across the bed furthest from the windows with his legs crossed, a large red lollipop periodically vanishing into his mouth and reappearing a few seconds later, all with a very carefully contrived expression of unconcern even as he avoided looking at either of the other two. The third occupant of the room sat at the tiny motel table with his laptop, shoulders tense and set, face expressionless as he typed or clicked, paging through paragraphs of information almost faster than they could load in a valiant effort to avoid looking at or even acknowledging the man who kept pacing.

A knock on the door drew the attention of two out of three sets of eyes, and then Dean Winchester scrambled to get the door open. "Bobby! Thank fuck you're here, man!"

"Good to see you, too," Bobby Singer replied dubiously as he gave Dean a concerned once-over. "You said it was an emergency, but you don't look hurt. Where's Sam?"

"Over here, Bobby," Sam Winchester called from the computer, not looking up from the screen even as he waved. "And it's not actually an emergency, no matter what Dean thinks. He just doesn't like what I told him and thinks you'll give him a different answer."

"Won't know until you tell me what's going on," Bobby pointed out as he stepped fully into the room, finally spotting the third occupant on the bed. "And who's this?"

"Part of the problem," Dean growled, glaring at the figure who flipped him off without looking.

"Dean," Sam scolded, a wealth of exasperation in his tone. Finally looking up from his computer, the younger Winchester brother gave Bobby an apologetic smile that looked more like a grimace. "It's complicated, but not a problem, or at least it doesn't have to be. Bobby Singer, meet Loki, Norse god of mischief and fire, patron of tricksters and pranksters... and my soulmate."

There was a moment of silence. Bobby surveyed the faces of all three individuals in the room, from Dean's scowling face and disbelieving eyeroll to Sam's strained projection of calm over acute distress mingled with grim certainty, to the third man who apparently wasn't even actually a human man but a god and was looking at Sam now with surprise and a certain amount of his own uncertainty. Like he hadn't expected Sam to say that and didn't quite know what to make of him. Bobby heaved a sigh.

"I'm gonna need a drink for this one," he informed the three of them.

Dean went and got out a bottle of whiskey.

Read the rest on AO3

[polysjmweek]

CNM Misconception #1

Misconception #1: “There is a specific ‘type’ of person that engages in CNM.”

Research has shown that there is no significant difference between individuals who do and do not engage in CNM. Two different nationally representative US surveys found even distribution between age, race, ethnicity, religion, income level, educational background, and where they lived within the US. The results of this research was also replicated in a nationally representative sample of Canadians.

There are all kinds of people who engage in consensual nonmonogamy, regardless of demographics! Everyone deserves to love and be loved in the way that suits them best, and that's what this event is all about.

For references on CNM feel free to check out these links: Association for Psychological Science Podcast, The Inquisitive Mind Article , NPR Podcast, CNM Fact Sheet

[morkaischosen]

Based on your tags on the "Why do some swingers hate polyamory" post: why DO you think that is?

so noting that this is wild, groundless speculation, and in particular that I don't know anything like enough about swinging to actually be confident in anything I'm saying:

I'd assume it has to do with the structure of the thing. Swinging as I understand it sets up quite a narrow context where the two partners in a couple set aside the usual boundaries of that relationship to do something they normally wouldn't; humans being humans, I imagine it's probably common for regular swingers to end up in a dynamic where they do their thing and then reaffirm the relationship afterwards in, you know, whatever manner works for them.

It seems natural to me that this would be one of those things where having clear exceptions strengthens the idea that they're an exception to something - and in that context, if you've built up momentum in the idea that you have a monogamous relationship except in this specific way, polyamory could easily look like it's doing exactly the thing you've been going 'but we won't do that' at for all that time.

I speculate (based, again, on no knowledge) that swinging circles - or at least the ones that are virulently opposed to polyamory - draw a very strong distinction between the defined sexual nonmonogamy they engage in, and it's easy for me to imagine that getting romantically involved with someone you met while swinging and starting an affair would be scandalous, breaching the structured boundary and calling all of the ritual of it into question. It's one of my favourite topics: it's easier to really loathe things you're closer to, sometimes, and I can see this being an example where the obvious common point of sexual non-monogamy really brings to attention the ways a swinging lifestyle centres the monogamous principles that underly some of it.

A lot of this is coming back to my conception of swinging as a couple activity - the norm as I understand it isn't a free-for-all, it's couples swapping partners, and that still structures itself around the monogamous couple in a way that polyamory's whole deal chips away at.

(I'll note that all of this is shot through with my assumptions about what polyamory means, which god knows don't seem to quite match up with the way a lot of people think about it; to me the default is individuals having their own relationships, which don't necessarily have much to do with their partners' relationships - I tend to become quite fond of my partners' partners, because I hear about them and I'm inclined to trust my partners' taste in people as much as in music or fiction, but I don't have the level of We Are All One Unit that what I've seen of wider discussions on tumblr seems to assume. As far as I know my angle lines up with how most people in my social vicinity look at it; I don't know if we're a weird niche and most people are doing the more closed-loop-looking The Polycule type shape that seems to be implied by a lot of Posting, or if we're fairly typical and much of what doesn't line up is an assumption from outside. Regardless, I'm coming at this from quite a long way from the sort of closed quad I could easily imagine coming about if two swinging couples who regularly see each other became a stable unit.)

This concludes my unfounded reckon based on a general interest in human psychology and a frankly very vague understanding of what swinging is all about.

[goldenasirpa]

I know people are wigging their precious minds over Jim and Oluwande so here's a reminder that nonmonogamy is not a moral failure or some type of "lesser love".

Also a reminder that polyamorous people fucking exist, in real life, and your god-awful takes about how "disappointed" you are that Jim and Oluwande must "not really care for each other" is extremely fucking gross!!!

[thevisibilityarchives]

The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo (2017), Taylor Jenkins Reid

LGBTQIA+

Summary: One of Hollywood’s greatest legends summons a struggling writer for a final tell-all to set the record straight about who amongst her many lovers was her one true love. 

Review Link: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4981011136

Full review: Roughly 2,408 years ago, Plato wrote of a Symposium (a drinking party for artists and philosophers in Ancient Greece). This particular Symposium produced a series of texts that are studied across different courses in schools and universities worldwide today. 

A poignant text from that evening is the Myth of Aristophanes, a farcical creation myth detailing the origins of man. According to the playwright Aristophanes, humans began as an intersex species with multiple sets of limbs. They aggrieved the gods in a display of great pride by attempting to climb Mt. Olympus. As punishment, Zeus cast them down and cleaved them in two, birthing our current anatomical state (fewer arms, legs, and eyes) and the two sexes. In addition to this, humanity became cursed, doomed eternally to forever search for their other half, their “soulmate”. This union the soul could only be found through Eros, in love or lust.  

Aristophanes meant this tale as a drunken joke, yet today we cling fervently to the notion of the soulmate. In cultures where we have the freedom to choose relationships, the majority of people believe in the existence of romantic soulmates. 

There are the other forms soulmates can take, especially for those who de-prioritize romantic love as a driving force in their lives, or who may practice non-hierarchical forms of nonmonogamy, like relationship anarchy. As the Washington Post states: “Biologically speaking, close friendships are a type of soul mate too…This ability we have to make someone special — our brains can do it again and again. That’s why we can have more than one soul mate in our lives. (Lervine, 2022).

In offices above us all, companies from dating apps to food companies capitalize heavily on this same notion to sell products. “What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons,” says Donald Draper in the very first episode of Mad Men.

No matter our personal stances on the soulmate, it is the latter that has the biggest influence, all stemming from that drunken farcical speech Aristophanes made. The billion dollar industry of love powers media, social mores, and consumer markets. Its mark on literature is poignant, and for authors like Taylor Jenkins Reid is how they have found success. 

The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo epitomizes this obsession with love, in an Americana-laced tale about an Old Hollywood star who reveals the secret she’s been hiding most of her life: her true love hasn’t been any of her seven spouses, but a woman. 

The titular character is an amalgamation of our world’s legendary screen sirens - Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Ava Gardner, and Rita Hayworth. She’s beautiful, unscrupulous, and has a rags to riches story that takes her to Hollywood where she skyrockets to success.

At the beginning of book we’re introduced to Evelyn post-career, as an elderly woman who reaches out to a little known reporter named Monique and offers her an interview. Her words suggest a tone of finality that indicate terminal illness, and a desire to get some things off her chest. From there, she begins to recount her life, experiences, her seven husbands, and the woman she hid beneath it all: Celia St. James. 

Two connections are made clear in Evelyn’s contacting Monique, who is a talented but unknown quantity. The first, is that the two share similarities as women of color, with Evelyn being Cuban and white passing and having hidden her identity during her career to attain stardom. Monique on the other hand is Caucasian and Black, and proud of her biracial heritage. This pride in the seeming duality of her race is something Evelyn assumes wille make Monique an inherently open-minded person when she reveals the truth about her relationship with Celia.

Monique does not inherently understand. She instinctively assumes Evelyn is a lesbian, much to Evelyn’s chagrin despite her own numerous passages stating that she is “biracial, not black”. 

As Evelyn recounts the history of her career and husbands, readers are interestingly treated to descriptions of men she loved, and men she abhorred alike. She meets men who use her, abuse her, love her, and idolize her all alike. Out of the seven, the general point of the book is that Celia is her one true love. 

Celia is a fellow actress and co-star of Evelyn’s and a lesbian. While far from unscrupulus as Evelyn, she does not possess a careless attitude about social norms of the time. That said, Celia possesses a seemingly naive attitude about what will happen if they are exposed and their lives subject to ruin. 

The result is a tumultuous relationship that is depicted as romantic. Both maintain beard relationships at various points, and Celia explodes into emotionally abusive tirades. Neither defines solid boundaries about what they’re willing to do or not do for their relationship, nor do they simply walk away when they feel disrespected. As with many Classic Hollywood movies, Celia is portrayed as the passionate lover who just cannot stand to see her femme fatale behaving badly. Her cruelty is justified as romantic, while Evelyn’s actions can be justified as simply doing what she has to for their relationship, or reviled for doing Celia wrong.

While poorly studied, data shows intimate partner violence among LGBTQ partnerships is staggering. “Life-time prevalence of IPV in LGB couples appeared to be similar to or higher than in heterosexual ones: 61.1% of bisexual women, 43.8% of lesbian women, 37.3% of bisexual men, and 26.0% of homosexual men experienced IPV during their life, while 35.0% of heterosexual women and 29.0% of heterosexual men experienced IPV. (Rollè, Giardina, Caldarera et al.) 

For the majority of readers of the book this relationship is viewed as simply passionate. Celia’s insults, degradation, name-calling, and devaluement is something that can be forgiven in the name of love, or simply doesn’t count because Celia and Evelyn are both women. 

On the Multiamory podcast, guest speaker and OkCupid Dating Coach Damona Hoffman joined the shows hosts to promote her upcoming book F the Fairy Tale: Rewrite the Dating Myths and Live Your Own Love Story. Among those myths she detailed the soulmate narrative, which she believes prevents people from pursuing relationships as they do not expect meeting people to mirror the feelings Don Draper and advertising executives have described in movies, advertising campaigns, and books. Show host Jase Lindgren also echoed the concerns growing numbers of relationships therapists and psychologists have stated with this idea today, which is that many people adhering to this idea are inclined to stay in relationships that are emotionally or physically abusive because they believe they have found their soulmate and won’t find another. As Jenkins Reid writes shows us, that’s all that matters. 

For the rest of the tale the two continue to part and come back to the each other, with Evelyn flying between men. She does find love in a way that is troublesome. Evelyn marries one of her best friends, gives birth to a child, and has perhaps one of the most stable relationships in the book–but its completely discounted as meaningless because he’s not Celia. He is a bisexual man who has been with her from the beginning, has been the only one who did not judge her, and has been the only character to treat her with respect throughout the entire book. Their love is one that is real, whole, and for those of us that believe in multiple soulmates, fulfills the criteria. 

While the book has been well received, it doesn’t always sit well in its representation of queer or BIPOC individuals. Evelyn’s character is the walking embodiment of harmful stereotypes about bisexual women. She is portrayed as hypersexual, narcissistic, manipulative, persistently unhappy, and unable to maintain a monogamous relationship. She is consistently questioned about whether she is really bisexual, attached to mostly men, and seemingly only finds the resolution to some of these things through Celia. Add to this her description of being Cuban contains frequent reference to her body type, which is at odds with beauty standards of Latino culture (or even white beauty standards of the 50s) and the characterization becomes a fetishization of these aspects of her character. 

These instances are seen again whenever characters who are not white or straight are present. Monique has cringeworthy passages alluding to her status as biracial. These reflections are indicative of an author who does not spend significant time engaging with the culture or communities they are writing about, and is producing work that is not intended to be consumed by them. 

You can find The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo here via its publisher Simon & Schuster, likely at your local library, or perhaps your local bookstore. 

Citations: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2022/09/16/soul-mates-real-science-research/

[leafdebrief]

my thoughts on monogamy

are complicated mostly because i am a fundamentally nonmonogamous being that spent most of their life in monogamous relationships. so, to begin: no, i do not believe any animal is "meant" to be monogamous. even other animals that mate for life, like foxes... i know in my heart that natural selection would rather they fuck like bunnies.

humans are an interesting kind of animal though, in the sense that we have seemingly unlimited agency to defy our animalistic programming.

there was a time in my life that i was convinced that monogamy was a type of agency i was not capable of. it turned out that i was mostly just a horny teenager with poorly matched romantic partners. i have 'cheated' in relationships, and been cheated on plenty.

my last relationship before Asia, i got cheated on in such a bad way (by a person that stans monogamy) that it nearly killed me (i nearly killed me). before that relationship, i had decided for myself that monogamy was not possible for me, and then gave it one more go with her anyway.

these days, i have a much more developed view. it's the same opinion, but i can navigate it better.

spending about a decade hanging around mostly LGBTQ2S+ folks in committed nonmonogamous relationships gave me the perspective i needed to wrap my views into a nice little bundle.

a relationship has many facets: "love" is too simple a word to describe every facet of a human relationship

there must be love obviously!

but there is also: romanticism, sexuality, admiration, trust... all these other aspects that don't always line up

two people in a monogamous relationship might be romantically in love but have no sexual attraction, or find each other sexually attractive but have no admiration of each other as people

that last point is a weird one, because for most people it means "those two humans are not meant to have a relationship". i don't think that is the case.

i think that if two people are sexually compatible, they could have a successful sexual relationship. same with romantic ones. i think that modern concepts of western relationships (based heavily in Judeo-Christian values) have everyone convinced that one relationship needs to have every part fulfilled before it is "good".

the secret (clichéd as it may be) is communication.

people in monogamous relationships that move into nonmonogamous ones have statistically low success rates. it's difficult to communicate your way into shedding a lifetime of programming. this is especially true if one person holds all the communication power.

which brings me to: my current relationship! probably the one i'll stay in for my time on this earth.

Asia was raised on monogamous relationship values. we met at a time in my life when my understanding of nonmonogamous relationship styles had finally crystallized. you might think this is a recipe for disaster. so how does it work?

we both have trust trauma from our previous relationships

both were monogamous, both were violated

i have nonmonogamous relationship values, but in the context of a relationship that is communicated to be monogamous, nonmonogamy represents a violation of terms

it may seem weird to put it this way, but every relationship has terms: most of them are unspoken, and that is the main problem with monogamous relationships that fail in my opinion. both partners have "terms" that they believe must be upheld to represent a good, valid, and healthy relationship to them.

my terms don't have to look like Asia's terms, as long as we are both acting in accordance with each other's terms. Asia's terms include: monogamy. mine do not. that means: i need to remain monogamous, and so must she until she communicates that her monogamous term is no longer required!

so here's the part where i got lucky.

she has everything i want in a relationship: romantic, intellectual, sexual, all of it. bases loaded. this is great for me, because in past monogamous relationships i've had to struggle with not having one or more of my relationship needs met.

that's easy to get around with communication: she knows i get crushes on people, and we talk openly about them. she knows there are other attractive people in the world, and she is generally fine just forgetting they exist given the communication. "i think that person is hella attractive" i say, and she jokingly pouts at me. then the other part kicks in: my attention span.

have you ever been so wholly engrossed in something that you lose focus for everything else around you? how about a someone?

i sure have, it's called ADHD and it makes me hyperfocus on projects a lot. something else it does is: see someone attractive, and then see another someone attractive who i happen to be in a relationship with who is jokingly pouting at me. attention returned to its post, post-haste.

so, in summary:

relationships are built from many pieces

not all those pieces have to be there

each party is responsible for communicating relationship terms

terms do not have to match up, just be followed

sometimes they're just all there and match up perfectly

and:

Asia wants monogamy

i am perfectly ok with that because she has all i want

i still find people hot

i'm pretty sure she does too but her trauma keeps her from communicating that

THAT IS OK

because we have each other always

✱♡

[phregnancy]

I think it depends on values, not statistics. I'm not asking about societal stigma(which the one you said are true), i'm only gossiping. Nonmonogamy is obviously valid, but applying it to Dan and Phil based on generalizations rather than anything they’ve said or done isn't logical to me. And of course any gossiping on this would be headcanon but i'm looking for that

i don’t think their values are necessarily against nonmonogamy either idk, dan has jealous moments but some of them are really played up for the camera and we know they’ve both expressed attraction to other men (whether they’re the typed to act on it idkkk) i wish i had strong opinions on this to gossip about but sadly i do not </3

[freshcuntgrass]

Hi hello hello excuse me how are you running two hour sessions in dnd? Do your players enjoy it? How many players do you have for this?

It works well for this group, although I tend to prefer three hour games in general (and if I'm being honest, we go 15-20 minutes over pretty often, occasionally a bit more). It's a four-player game, if one is missing we'll often go ahead but not always. Here's what I think makes it work and/or some stuff to keep in mind if you run shorter games.

My players know what they're doing. This group is all experienced and I think most of them have DM'd before, so I do not have to know their character sheets or go over really basic rules. This is huge. (They're also just all really chill and mature, and we get along well. I don't know if this helps with time, but it helps in general.)

We have a really good Discord going. I share one Discord for every party I run, and each party has a role that lets them access designated channels for that party: scheduling, links, notes, chat, memes. Nothing important gets lost, and it's easy to communicate asynchronously through the week, so that...

Housekeeping happens outside the session. My players usually DM me with level-up questions like advice on feats, etc. Any shopping that isn't specifically a fun little interaction or story beat usually takes place in the chat or notes tab. If they've got a big decision on something to make-- i.e. do you want to take the shorter route through the scary-sounding demon ruins, or a slight detour in the town where everything is probably fine? (except the unethical nonmonogamy toxic vampire milf/dilf situation but they couldn't have known about that ahead of time lmao)-- I'll telegraph that far enough in advance that we can debate the decision in the notes over the week, letting me just prep the option they want and saving them half an hour of arguing in character.

People generally know what's going on with the plot. It moves slower than usual in real-time terms, but once they've picked a path for the next arc, that's kind of the arc. Again, having shared links/notes helps, so I can link things like World Anvil articles about whatever they just researched or type out a specific important name, phrase, puzzle, etc. There's also easily referenceable summaries of NPCs and important documents directly in the Roll20 journal tab, and I make the players do the start-of-session summary instead of me feeding it to them, which also forces them to stay aware (and lets me know what they think is important). Generally, I try to make it easy to remember (even though my plots can get pretty convoluted sometimes), but they're also very good at remembering, because...

Sessions. Are. Weekly. This is the most important thing, and I swear by it. We're all busy adults with jobs and lives (hence the 2-hour sessions), so there are some unavoidable off weeks, but a weekly commitment on the same day every time is way easier to schedule around than something that's wobblier. It's a pattern I've seen everywhere: a weekly game will probably happen four out of five weeks, a biweekly game will probably happen like, once a month and eventually peter out due to people filling that time with something else. If you're not playing regularly, you will be rusty on your character sheet, and battles will take forever. If you're not playing regularly, you'll forget what's going on, and not be able to pick up important clues or make decisions that further the plot. A lot of the unfun, frustrating, time-consuming bullshit that can pop up in D&D is a result of not being able to easily jump into the game world when it's game time. It's all about the weekly sessions.

to be fair my job also isn't real and i prep on company time. which helps with everything in general

[boiboiham]

A "fantabulous" update in the wonderful world of me...

On our shared discord server me and my ex where on, I got the news that they are now in a polycule with two people in our friend group. And im just like, wtf??? I thought you where monogamous?? Why them? And why in our friend group? I wouldnt dream of partnering up with anyone in our friend group out of respect for them...

We are no contact for now, so I cant ask them about it yet, but I will. My leading theory is that we both want different types of nonmonogamy? Like, I know for a fact that I only want one singular partner who is allowed do go do things with fwb's [with rules and boundaries in place for both of us, ofc]. I want a singular someone who I can feel compersion about, who can also feel compersion for me in return. Perhaps theyre open to a "closed" poly format?? I dunno, maybe, it would make me feel a lot better about this whole thing, if that was the case.