Sleeping With Some Guy's Wife

[Atb210201]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Anyways.  That's the tradeoff. Maybe you can get the whole thing from marriage.  I just tended to get bored 

I myself want to live a celibate life.

I've had my deep loving relationship with my ex.

I can't allow myself to love anyone else anymore.

And on top of that now I'm fighting to get rid of my sexual urges as well how about that

I know I'm a bit extreme in my approach here to many or maybe all of you.

But I can't help it.

This is the way I want to be.

Edited Sunday at 11:44 PM by Atb210201

[Inliytened1]

9 minutes ago, Atb210201 said:

I myself want to live a celibate life.

I've had my deep loving relationship with my ex.

I can't allow myself to love anyone else anymore.

And on top of that now I'm fighting to get rid of my sexual urges as well how about that

I know I'm a bit extreme in my approach here to many or maybe all of you.

But I can't help it.

This is the way I want to be.

It's good to see you actually.  You were one of the first friends I met on here back in 2018. Remember ?  I remember you.

[Atb210201]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

It's good to see you actually.  You were one of the first friends I met on here back in 2018. Remember ?  I remember you.

I do remember you but I don't think I was here in 2018.

I think I joined 2021 if I'm not mistaken.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else

But nevertheless I feel acknowledged by your words. Thanks.

I consider you my friend as well.

Edited Sunday at 11:59 PM by Atb210201

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Atb210201 said:

I do remember you but I don't think I was here in 2018.

I think I joined 2021 if I'm not mistaken.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else

But nevertheless I feel acknowledged by your words. Thanks.

Well you were one of the guys back from the beginning. And you ALWAYS got it. At least we always aligned. And we still do. I loved your post about the Bible I wanted to talk more about that. But we can do that. But..as far as your urges.  We'll. Itch if you see that it needs a scratch..  I'm sorry about your ex but its a new day. 

Edited Monday at 12:02 AM by Inliytened1

[Atb210201]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well you were one of the guys back from the beginning. And you ALWAYS got it. At least we always aligned. And we still do. I loved your post about the Bible I wanted to talk more about that. But we can do that. But..as far as your urges.  We'll. Itch if you see that it needs a scratch..  I'm sorry about your ex but its a new day. 

Thanks man.

It really means a lot to me.

You're really kind.

The feeling is mutual brother.

Yes the Bible is on my to do list and I want to read all of it in time.

Maybe I'll talk about it more after I've read it.

[Thought Art]

Im not into open relationships. I have ADHD. I just want a long term partner.

Edited Monday at 12:09 AM by Thought Art

[BlessedLion]

On 3/16/2026 at 2:48 AM, Leo Gura said:

It all depends on whether the marriage is serious or not.

If it's a serious marriage, don't do it.

But if the marriage is truly already over, then there's more leeway here.

Some marriages are mostly in name only.

The metric is: don't be the one to break up a solid marriage.

how can you know that though?

Honestly, in my own life i've been having more girls with mongomous boyfriends/husbands suggesting they are open to hook up and i'm tired of turning down those opportunities because i'm trying to be ethical. It feels like it's not really my job to manage

Edited yesterday at 07:40 AM by BlessedLion

[BlessedLion]

On 3/15/2026 at 8:24 PM, Cred said:

Open relationships is an ADHD thing. If you have ADHD, you are blind to the concept of monogamy.

Some people genuinely can''t do the monogamy thing. It doesn't work for their personality adn sexual prefences. Honestly, if most men knew how to get laid, they would be Poly. They only go for monogamy because it gives them consistent sex which they can't get without comiting to one woman

[BlessedLion]

@Cred By your logic then King Solomon, Montezuma, Julius Ceaser, Genghis Khan and literally every other great conquerer and king had ADHD, LOL

[Valach]

1 hour ago, BlessedLion said:

Some people genuinely can''t do the monogamy thing. It doesn't work for their personality adn sexual prefences. Honestly, if most men knew how to get laid, they would be Poly. They only go for monogamy because it gives them consistent sex which they can't get without comiting to one woman

I don't think that is true. I have also met a lot of men who developed sex and validation addiction and then thought that their "nature" is to be poly or just promiscous. The men I have met who really went through a healing journey usually ended up way more solitary and either went for mono relationships or just stayed single.

 

1 hour ago, BlessedLion said:

@Cred By your logic then King Solomon, Montezuma, Julius Ceaser, Genghis Khan and literally every other great conquerer and king had ADHD, LOL

Well these individuals were also not really healthy, I mean some of them literally caused death of millions of people. I have no clue about ADHD thing but I would not look up to them.

Edited yesterday at 09:01 AM by Valach

[BlessedLion]

1 hour ago, Valach said:

I don't think that is true. I have also met a lot of men who developed sex and validation addiction and then thought that their "nature" is to be poly or just promiscous. The men I have met who really went through a healing journey usually ended up way more solitary and either went for mono relationships or just stayed single.

 

Well these individuals were also not really healthy, I mean some of them literally caused death of millions of people. I have no clue about ADHD thing but I would not look up to them.

Appreciate your takes. For sure, I think when a man is ready he can definitely go mono in a healthy way. But i also think some people not just men, lean more towards a poly preference. 

 

Have you heard of the chimps versus bonobos? Both are our ancestors in the ape lineage and they have wildly different sexual preferences. I think some people are like chimps and some are like bonobos in that sense. 

Sure, they killed people, but they also lived in a time where that was the norm/ level of development. I'm not saying they were saints but this is a discussion about sexuality and the claim that men who have multiple partners are ADHD is pretty wild

[something_else]

3 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

I'm not saying they were saints but this is a discussion about sexuality and the claim that men who have multiple partners are ADHD is pretty wild

It's probably not that insane. I reckon there's a high overlap between ADHD and having lots of partners. It certainly wouldn't surprise me. There's also nothing wrong with it either.

[Schizophonia]

You have to bite off more than you can chew to claim to be polygamous, or have too much free time, money lol, and especially little attachment, little depth in your approach to people and things.

Sometimes there is ideological indoctrination; either rather left-wing postmodern, or rather right-wing MIGTOW, personal development, pick up etc.

Generally they end up promoting the third world, especially Southeast Asia or South America, because Western women (people in general) are more intelligent or at least “more in their prefrontal cortex” in general, and do not like things to go too fast, like to share long-term activities, are generally more “naive” etc.

Do you want to move towards a frequency of wealth or a more primitive one. It's the hidden question behind all this. 

Edited yesterday at 10:34 AM by Schizophonia

[Valach]

44 minutes ago, something_else said:

It's probably not that insane. I reckon there's a high overlap between ADHD and having lots of partners. It certainly wouldn't surprise me. There's also nothing wrong with it either.

I think the phrase "there's nothing wrong with it" is actually where this gets complicated.

In the spiritual/non-dual sense, sure. You can ultimately say there is nothing inherently "wrong" with almost any human behavior. But that's a very different question from whether a behavior comes from wholeness, or whether it's functioning as a way of regulating something unresolved within you.

You could equally say there is "nothing wrong" with taking drugs. I'm not interested in morally condemning someone for doing drugs. But that doesn't mean drug use can't function as a coping mechanism. And if you're continually regulating an underlying feeling through the drug, one of the costs is that you may never actually encounter and resolve whatever is driving the need for it.

I think sexuality can work similarly.

I don't know enough about the research to say whether ADHD actually correlates with having more sexual partners, although I've heard the claim before and I can see why things like novelty/reward seeking could potentially contribute to it.

But this is also why I'm skeptical when people say, "That's simply who I am. I prefer lots of sexual partners."

Maybe. But how do you actually know?

What we experience as a "preference" can sometimes be the particular way our system has learned to regulate itself. Novelty, sex, being desired, conquest, romantic intensity, etc. can all make you feel extremely good temporarily. It's therefore very easy to incorporate the behavior into your identity: "I'm just a highly sexual person," "I'm naturally polyamorous," "I need novelty," etc.

But if you resolved the underlying anxiety, insecurity, trauma, validation-seeking, or whatever else might be driving the behavior, and your default state became much more peaceful and fulfilled, would you still want the same thing to the same degree?

Maybe you would. In that case, perhaps it really is simply a preference. But you might also discover that much of what you considered your personality was actually regulation.

That's basically my disagreement with the idea that because something feels like a preference and isn't morally wrong, it must therefore represent some authentic part of "who you are." Sometimes what feels most like "me" is simply a coping strategy I've been running for so long that I can no longer distinguish it from myself.

Partially a reaction to @BlessedLion as well. I suck at quoting here

 

Edited yesterday at 11:02 AM by Valach

[something_else]

@Valach by there's nothing wrong with it I just mean I'm not judging anyone for it specifically. Sure some people sleep around for unhealthy reasons but you can identify that through other indicators.

[Valach]

4 minutes ago, something_else said:

@Valach by there's nothing wrong with it I just mean I'm not judging anyone for it specifically. Sure some people sleep around for unhealthy reasons but you can identify that through other indicators.

Yeah, I think we're mostly on the same page regarding the moral judgment part. I'm not interested in judging someone for sleeping around either.

Where I might disagree is that I think it can be surprisingly difficult to distinguish a genuine preference from a coping mechanism through other indicators.

But noone is "wrong" or "dysfunctional" for participating. It is a simple adaptation.

[BlessedLion]

22 hours ago, Valach said:

What we experience as a "preference" can sometimes be the particular way our system has learned to regulate itself. Novelty, sex, being desired, conquest, romantic intensity, etc. can all make you feel extremely good temporarily. It's therefore very easy to incorporate the behavior into your identity: "I'm just a highly sexual person," "I'm naturally polyamorous," "I need novelty," etc.

But if you resolved the underlying anxiety, insecurity, trauma, validation-seeking, or whatever else might be driving the behavior, and your default state became much more peaceful and fulfilled, would you still want the same thing to the same degree?

Gaslighting at it's finest.

 

I am totally whole and complete in myself, and it's probably because of this and not in spite of this that i prefer multiple partners.

I honestly think most men would have a preference for this if we didn't have societal conditioning that pushes us towards monogamy and marriage. The other problem would be is if society was poly only a few men would have most of the women which most men don't want. 

 

Poly men/ players are a threat to society in a sense. 

Edited 6 hours ago by BlessedLion

[BlessedLion]

Just because someone is doing something that you don't do or prefer doesn't mean they are coming from some trauma, anxiety or core wound/belief, that argument is so lazy and biased.

[Basman]

23 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

Have you heard of the chimps versus bonobos? Both are our ancestors in the ape lineage and they have wildly different sexual preferences.

Chimps and bonobos are not our ancestors. They are evolutionary relatives. Were not even the same genus. We branched off from a common ancestors millions ago on the evolutionary tree. Human mating habits is more relative to environment and survival strategy than anything else. 

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

[Valach]

@BlessedLion

First, I want to push back a little on the gaslighting accusation, because I think you've interpreted my point much more specifically than I intended it.

When I said "you don't know who you are or what your authentic self really wants," I wasn't actually talking specifically about polyamory. I meant that much more broadly, and I include myself in it.

My point is that human beings develop enormous numbers of adaptations to their environment, attachment experiences, trauma, anxiety, etc., and then experience those adaptations simply as "me."

And the particularly tricky ones are the adaptations that society rewards.

Someone can compulsively pursue achievement because underneath it they don't feel worthy, become extremely successful, and spend 30 years thinking "I'm just an ambitious person." Society will reinforce that identity because they're making $500k/year.

Someone else might regulate themselves through attention, sex, relationships, extreme independence, intellectual achievement, spirituality, constant stimulation, whatever.

None of these things are inherently bad. The point is that the subjective experience of "I genuinely enjoy this" doesn't necessarily tell you WHY you enjoy it.

That's what I mean when I say most people don't really know themselves. I'm not standing outside of that statement pointing at everyone else. Trauma work has increasingly made me realize how little I know about myself and how many things I previously considered "me" may actually have been adaptations.

I also completely agree with you that society heavily conditions people toward monogamy. Where I'd go one step further, though, is that rejecting conditioning doesn't necessarily mean you've escaped conditioning.

You can define yourself in opposition to a cultural norm and still be psychologically organized around that norm. It's similar to adolescence: separating yourself from your parents by doing the opposite of what they want is an important stage of differentiation, but you're still being influenced by them. Genuine freedom would mean neither obeying nor rebelling automatically.

So I wouldn't assume that someone choosing monogamy is expressing their authentic nature, but I also wouldn't assume that someone rejecting monogamy has therefore discovered theirs.

Regarding promiscuity specifically, this is where my personal observation does give me a bias.

I've known quite a few people who were extremely driven toward sex, novelty, validation, etc., and I've repeatedly seen that drive become less compulsive as they worked through their underlying shit. Not necessarily disappearing, and certainly not everybody becoming monogamous, but the intensity often seems to calm down.

That makes intuitive sense to me because sex is an incredibly powerful regulator. Like many pleasurable experiences, it can temporarily take us away from anxiety, emptiness, insecurity, restlessness, etc. If there's less internal discomfort that needs regulating, there's potentially less urgency behind seeking the experience.

But I'm not claiming that therefore every person with a high libido or multiple partners is traumatized and secretly wants monogamy. That would be ridiculous, and I don't know you well enough to tell you where your own preferences come from.

My point is more fundamental: I don't think introspection alone gives any of us privileged access to the origin of our desires.

You can feel completely certain that something is "just who you are" and later, after changing psychologically, realize that it was serving a function you couldn't see at the time.

And perhaps after doing all that work, you still want five girlfriends.

Then fair enough. I'm not trying to smuggle monogamy in as the final stage of psychological development.

I'm questioning the certainty with which human beings construct identities around their current preferences in the first place.