1 year
Finding a bf/gf
X_Larsson:
Maybe because you are not monogamous (as your profile states)? Red flag for many men, definitely.
GreenMeansGo34:
There are plenty of non monogamous men and women out there. Non monogamy and polyamory are very common and those types of relationships are just as valid as monogamous relationships.
X_Larsson:
That does not change my statement. For the fundamental masculine personality, "charing" a woman with someone else is a BIG no.
Women are not dispositioned in the similar way. In fact, a woman can accept her man has multiple women, as that confirms his attractiveness.
Exactly what is proven by the 80-20 split in outcome of modern dating apps...
(As I must assume you refer to above "relationships", which I would have called ONS.)
Maybe because you are not monogamous (as your profile states)? Red flag for many men, definitely.
GreenMeansGo34:
There are plenty of non monogamous men and women out there. Non monogamy and polyamory are very common and those types of relationships are just as valid as monogamous relationships.
X_Larsson:
That does not change my statement. For the fundamental masculine personality, "charing" a woman with someone else is a BIG no.
Women are not dispositioned in the similar way. In fact, a woman can accept her man has multiple women, as that confirms his attractiveness.
Exactly what is proven by the 80-20 split in outcome of modern dating apps...
(As I must assume you refer to above "relationships", which I would have called ONS.)
This is inappropriately hostile. It is difficult to discern a legitimate motivation for this post or for you having replied at all.
The reality is that it's inherently very difficult for people with unusual preferences - it's difficult enough even for people without unusual preferences to find somebody truly suitable where there's also mutual attraction. Adding a single unusual preference makes this exceptionally difficult; more than one at once may make it virtually impossible. (And being non-monogamous is not a "red flag" if it's done openly and consensually: it's a lifestyle preference. It is one that many may not share, but there is no legitimate or honest basis for hostility to those for whom it is a preference).
This does not mean that people should settle for something unsatisfactory - far from it. It is better to be single than to be in a relationship for the sake of it; but it definitely helps to understand in advance the inherent difficulties that one is likely to face so as not to be disappointed when those difficulties manifest.
1 year
Finding a bf/gf
X_Larsson:
Maybe because you are not monogamous (as your profile states)? Red flag for many men, definitely.
GreenMeansGo34:
There are plenty of non monogamous men and women out there. Non monogamy and polyamory are very common and those types of relationships are just as valid as monogamous relationships.
X_Larsson:
That does not change my statement. For the fundamental masculine personality, "charing" a woman with someone else is a BIG no.
Women are not dispositioned in the similar way. In fact, a woman can accept her man has multiple women, as that confirms his attractiveness.
Exactly what is proven by the 80-20 split in outcome of modern dating apps...
(As I must assume you refer to above "relationships", which I would have called ONS.)
Mrman1980uk:
This is inappropriately hostile. It is difficult to discern a legitimate motivation for this post or for you having replied at all.
The reality is that it's inherently very difficult for people with unusual preferences - it's difficult enough even for people without unusual preferences to find somebody truly suitable where there's also mutual attraction. Adding a single unusual preference makes this exceptionally difficult; more than one at once may make it virtually impossible. (And being non-monogamous is not a "red flag" if it's done openly and consensually: it's a lifestyle preference. It is one that many may not share, but there is no legitimate or honest basis for hostility to those for whom it is a preference).
This does not mean that people should settle for something unsatisfactory - far from it. It is better to be single than to be in a relationship for the sake of it; but it definitely helps to understand in advance the inherent difficulties that one is likely to face so as not to be disappointed when those difficulties manifest.
X_Larsson:
White knight storming in?
She asks "why there is no man for her".
TopJimmy and myself have provided two very valid reasons; no reply from her, or very few men interested in having a long term relation with a non monogamous woman.
I have never in real life heard a man expressing a preference for not being the only man in the relation.
What I have stated are FACTS, not opinions. Facts are not hostile, neither am I.
Why would I otherwise try to help her, by providing reasons?
Maybe because you are not monogamous (as your profile states)? Red flag for many men, definitely.
GreenMeansGo34:
There are plenty of non monogamous men and women out there. Non monogamy and polyamory are very common and those types of relationships are just as valid as monogamous relationships.
X_Larsson:
That does not change my statement. For the fundamental masculine personality, "charing" a woman with someone else is a BIG no.
Women are not dispositioned in the similar way. In fact, a woman can accept her man has multiple women, as that confirms his attractiveness.
Exactly what is proven by the 80-20 split in outcome of modern dating apps...
(As I must assume you refer to above "relationships", which I would have called ONS.)
Mrman1980uk:
This is inappropriately hostile. It is difficult to discern a legitimate motivation for this post or for you having replied at all.
The reality is that it's inherently very difficult for people with unusual preferences - it's difficult enough even for people without unusual preferences to find somebody truly suitable where there's also mutual attraction. Adding a single unusual preference makes this exceptionally difficult; more than one at once may make it virtually impossible. (And being non-monogamous is not a "red flag" if it's done openly and consensually: it's a lifestyle preference. It is one that many may not share, but there is no legitimate or honest basis for hostility to those for whom it is a preference).
This does not mean that people should settle for something unsatisfactory - far from it. It is better to be single than to be in a relationship for the sake of it; but it definitely helps to understand in advance the inherent difficulties that one is likely to face so as not to be disappointed when those difficulties manifest.
X_Larsson:
White knight storming in?
She asks "why there is no man for her".
TopJimmy and myself have provided two very valid reasons; no reply from her, or very few men interested in having a long term relation with a non monogamous woman.
I have never in real life heard a man expressing a preference for not being the only man in the relation.
What I have stated are FACTS, not opinions. Facts are not hostile, neither am I.
Why would I otherwise try to help her, by providing reasons?
No, you are an abuser. You are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting your own behaviour.
You are being deliberately, overtly hostile, as well you know. Being emphatic to such an extreme extent that you feel the need to write in all caps, for example, is consistent only with truly extreme hostility. Describing a niche lifestyle preference as a "red flag" (the phrase meaning, as you specifically intended it to mean, a reason to believe that the person in question is untrustworthy, rather than merely incompatible) is deliberately, overtly hostile. Describing someone pointing out your intentional abuse as "white knight storming in" is deliberately, overtly hostile.
1 year
Finding a bf/gf
X_Larsson:
Maybe because you are not monogamous (as your profile states)? Red flag for many men, definitely.
GreenMeansGo34:
There are plenty of non monogamous men and women out there. Non monogamy and polyamory are very common and those types of relationships are just as valid as monogamous relationships.
X_Larsson:
That does not change my statement. For the fundamental masculine personality, "charing" a woman with someone else is a BIG no.
Women are not dispositioned in the similar way. In fact, a woman can accept her man has multiple women, as that confirms his attractiveness.
Exactly what is proven by the 80-20 split in outcome of modern dating apps...
(As I must assume you refer to above "relationships", which I would have called ONS.)
Mrman1980uk:
This is inappropriately hostile. It is difficult to discern a legitimate motivation for this post or for you having replied at all.
The reality is that it's inherently very difficult for people with unusual preferences - it's difficult enough even for people without unusual preferences to find somebody truly suitable where there's also mutual attraction. Adding a single unusual preference makes this exceptionally difficult; more than one at once may make it virtually impossible. (And being non-monogamous is not a "red flag" if it's done openly and consensually: it's a lifestyle preference. It is one that many may not share, but there is no legitimate or honest basis for hostility to those for whom it is a preference).
This does not mean that people should settle for something unsatisfactory - far from it. It is better to be single than to be in a relationship for the sake of it; but it definitely helps to understand in advance the inherent difficulties that one is likely to face so as not to be disappointed when those difficulties manifest.
X_Larsson:
White knight storming in?
She asks "why there is no man for her".
TopJimmy and myself have provided two very valid reasons; no reply from her, or very few men interested in having a long term relation with a non monogamous woman.
I have never in real life heard a man expressing a preference for not being the only man in the relation.
What I have stated are FACTS, not opinions. Facts are not hostile, neither am I.
Why would I otherwise try to help her, by providing reasons?
Mrman1980uk:
No, you are an abuser. You are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting your own behaviour.
You are being deliberately, overtly hostile, as well you know. Being emphatic to such an extreme extent that you feel the need to write in all caps, for example, is consistent only with truly extreme hostility. Describing a niche lifestyle preference as a "red flag" (the phrase meaning, as you specifically intended it to mean, a reason to believe that the person in question is untrustworthy, rather than merely incompatible) is deliberately, overtly hostile. Describing someone pointing out your intentional abuse as "white knight storming in" is deliberately, overtly hostile.
X_Larsson:
Haha.... I am not hostile or an abuser, nor am I telling lies or "misrepresenting"!
A woman not limiting herself to one man IS a red flag for most men, feedists not excluded. If anything, the nurturing element in a feeder would probably call for a stronger one-to-one relationship, than the opposite, is my personal guess.
If she is looking for feeders open to multi partner relations, not too far away, AND with money to spend, she might have to look for a long time. She can maybe attract additional contacts with a more interesting profile, more contribution in the forum, or better pics? Let us know what she "brings to the table", no pun intended.
If anything, she could participate in this discussion?
I am sure she can express herself without the assistance of white knights?
Anyways, I sincerely hope that people her DO meet other men and women into feedism. She is not the first to realize that we are few and far between.
Maybe because you are not monogamous (as your profile states)? Red flag for many men, definitely.
GreenMeansGo34:
There are plenty of non monogamous men and women out there. Non monogamy and polyamory are very common and those types of relationships are just as valid as monogamous relationships.
X_Larsson:
That does not change my statement. For the fundamental masculine personality, "charing" a woman with someone else is a BIG no.
Women are not dispositioned in the similar way. In fact, a woman can accept her man has multiple women, as that confirms his attractiveness.
Exactly what is proven by the 80-20 split in outcome of modern dating apps...
(As I must assume you refer to above "relationships", which I would have called ONS.)
Mrman1980uk:
This is inappropriately hostile. It is difficult to discern a legitimate motivation for this post or for you having replied at all.
The reality is that it's inherently very difficult for people with unusual preferences - it's difficult enough even for people without unusual preferences to find somebody truly suitable where there's also mutual attraction. Adding a single unusual preference makes this exceptionally difficult; more than one at once may make it virtually impossible. (And being non-monogamous is not a "red flag" if it's done openly and consensually: it's a lifestyle preference. It is one that many may not share, but there is no legitimate or honest basis for hostility to those for whom it is a preference).
This does not mean that people should settle for something unsatisfactory - far from it. It is better to be single than to be in a relationship for the sake of it; but it definitely helps to understand in advance the inherent difficulties that one is likely to face so as not to be disappointed when those difficulties manifest.
X_Larsson:
White knight storming in?
She asks "why there is no man for her".
TopJimmy and myself have provided two very valid reasons; no reply from her, or very few men interested in having a long term relation with a non monogamous woman.
I have never in real life heard a man expressing a preference for not being the only man in the relation.
What I have stated are FACTS, not opinions. Facts are not hostile, neither am I.
Why would I otherwise try to help her, by providing reasons?
Mrman1980uk:
No, you are an abuser. You are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting your own behaviour.
You are being deliberately, overtly hostile, as well you know. Being emphatic to such an extreme extent that you feel the need to write in all caps, for example, is consistent only with truly extreme hostility. Describing a niche lifestyle preference as a "red flag" (the phrase meaning, as you specifically intended it to mean, a reason to believe that the person in question is untrustworthy, rather than merely incompatible) is deliberately, overtly hostile. Describing someone pointing out your intentional abuse as "white knight storming in" is deliberately, overtly hostile.
X_Larsson:
Haha.... I am not hostile or an abuser, nor am I telling lies or "misrepresenting"!
A woman not limiting herself to one man IS a red flag for most men, feedists not excluded. If anything, the nurturing element in a feeder would probably call for a stronger one-to-one relationship, than the opposite, is my personal guess.
If she is looking for feeders open to multi partner relations, not too far away, AND with money to spend, she might have to look for a long time. She can maybe attract additional contacts with a more interesting profile, more contribution in the forum, or better pics? Let us know what she "brings to the table", no pun intended.
If anything, she could participate in this discussion?
I am sure she can express herself without the assistance of white knights?
Anyways, I sincerely hope that people her DO meet other men and women into feedism. She is not the first to realize that we are few and far between.
I won't go so far as to call you an abuser, but you were being fairly hostile right out of the gate.
I will agree with you that a lot of people view polyamory as a red flag. Unfortunately, a lot of people pretend to be poly as a cover for cheating. However, the way you phrased things makes it sound like you are condemning polyamory in general.
That said, I can confirm there are a lot of men on FF that will happily share a woman. Even though I'm in a monogamous relationship, I still get messages from men looking to be my side piece.
1 year
Finding a bf/gf
X_Larsson:
Maybe because you are not monogamous (as your profile states)? Red flag for many men, definitely.
GreenMeansGo34:
There are plenty of non monogamous men and women out there. Non monogamy and polyamory are very common and those types of relationships are just as valid as monogamous relationships.
X_Larsson:
That does not change my statement. For the fundamental masculine personality, "charing" a woman with someone else is a BIG no.
Women are not dispositioned in the similar way. In fact, a woman can accept her man has multiple women, as that confirms his attractiveness.
Exactly what is proven by the 80-20 split in outcome of modern dating apps...
(As I must assume you refer to above "relationships", which I would have called ONS.)
Mrman1980uk:
This is inappropriately hostile. It is difficult to discern a legitimate motivation for this post or for you having replied at all.
The reality is that it's inherently very difficult for people with unusual preferences - it's difficult enough even for people without unusual preferences to find somebody truly suitable where there's also mutual attraction. Adding a single unusual preference makes this exceptionally difficult; more than one at once may make it virtually impossible. (And being non-monogamous is not a "red flag" if it's done openly and consensually: it's a lifestyle preference. It is one that many may not share, but there is no legitimate or honest basis for hostility to those for whom it is a preference).
This does not mean that people should settle for something unsatisfactory - far from it. It is better to be single than to be in a relationship for the sake of it; but it definitely helps to understand in advance the inherent difficulties that one is likely to face so as not to be disappointed when those difficulties manifest.
X_Larsson:
White knight storming in?
She asks "why there is no man for her".
TopJimmy and myself have provided two very valid reasons; no reply from her, or very few men interested in having a long term relation with a non monogamous woman.
I have never in real life heard a man expressing a preference for not being the only man in the relation.
What I have stated are FACTS, not opinions. Facts are not hostile, neither am I.
Why would I otherwise try to help her, by providing reasons?
Mrman1980uk:
No, you are an abuser. You are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting your own behaviour.
You are being deliberately, overtly hostile, as well you know. Being emphatic to such an extreme extent that you feel the need to write in all caps, for example, is consistent only with truly extreme hostility. Describing a niche lifestyle preference as a "red flag" (the phrase meaning, as you specifically intended it to mean, a reason to believe that the person in question is untrustworthy, rather than merely incompatible) is deliberately, overtly hostile. Describing someone pointing out your intentional abuse as "white knight storming in" is deliberately, overtly hostile.
X_Larsson:
Haha.... I am not hostile or an abuser, nor am I telling lies or "misrepresenting"!
A woman not limiting herself to one man IS a red flag for most men, feedists not excluded. If anything, the nurturing element in a feeder would probably call for a stronger one-to-one relationship, than the opposite, is my personal guess.
If she is looking for feeders open to multi partner relations, not too far away, AND with money to spend, she might have to look for a long time. She can maybe attract additional contacts with a more interesting profile, more contribution in the forum, or better pics? Let us know what she "brings to the table", no pun intended.
If anything, she could participate in this discussion?
I am sure she can express herself without the assistance of white knights?
Anyways, I sincerely hope that people her DO meet other men and women into feedism. She is not the first to realize that we are few and far between.
Maybe because you are not monogamous (as your profile states)? Red flag for many men, definitely.
GreenMeansGo34:
There are plenty of non monogamous men and women out there. Non monogamy and polyamory are very common and those types of relationships are just as valid as monogamous relationships.
X_Larsson:
That does not change my statement. For the fundamental masculine personality, "charing" a woman with someone else is a BIG no.
Women are not dispositioned in the similar way. In fact, a woman can accept her man has multiple women, as that confirms his attractiveness.
Exactly what is proven by the 80-20 split in outcome of modern dating apps...
(As I must assume you refer to above "relationships", which I would have called ONS.)
Mrman1980uk:
This is inappropriately hostile. It is difficult to discern a legitimate motivation for this post or for you having replied at all.
The reality is that it's inherently very difficult for people with unusual preferences - it's difficult enough even for people without unusual preferences to find somebody truly suitable where there's also mutual attraction. Adding a single unusual preference makes this exceptionally difficult; more than one at once may make it virtually impossible. (And being non-monogamous is not a "red flag" if it's done openly and consensually: it's a lifestyle preference. It is one that many may not share, but there is no legitimate or honest basis for hostility to those for whom it is a preference).
This does not mean that people should settle for something unsatisfactory - far from it. It is better to be single than to be in a relationship for the sake of it; but it definitely helps to understand in advance the inherent difficulties that one is likely to face so as not to be disappointed when those difficulties manifest.
X_Larsson:
White knight storming in?
She asks "why there is no man for her".
TopJimmy and myself have provided two very valid reasons; no reply from her, or very few men interested in having a long term relation with a non monogamous woman.
I have never in real life heard a man expressing a preference for not being the only man in the relation.
What I have stated are FACTS, not opinions. Facts are not hostile, neither am I.
Why would I otherwise try to help her, by providing reasons?
Mrman1980uk:
No, you are an abuser. You are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting your own behaviour.
You are being deliberately, overtly hostile, as well you know. Being emphatic to such an extreme extent that you feel the need to write in all caps, for example, is consistent only with truly extreme hostility. Describing a niche lifestyle preference as a "red flag" (the phrase meaning, as you specifically intended it to mean, a reason to believe that the person in question is untrustworthy, rather than merely incompatible) is deliberately, overtly hostile. Describing someone pointing out your intentional abuse as "white knight storming in" is deliberately, overtly hostile.
X_Larsson:
Haha.... I am not hostile or an abuser, nor am I telling lies or "misrepresenting"!
A woman not limiting herself to one man IS a red flag for most men, feedists not excluded. If anything, the nurturing element in a feeder would probably call for a stronger one-to-one relationship, than the opposite, is my personal guess.
If she is looking for feeders open to multi partner relations, not too far away, AND with money to spend, she might have to look for a long time. She can maybe attract additional contacts with a more interesting profile, more contribution in the forum, or better pics? Let us know what she "brings to the table", no pun intended.
If anything, she could participate in this discussion?
I am sure she can express herself without the assistance of white knights?
Anyways, I sincerely hope that people her DO meet other men and women into feedism. She is not the first to realize that we are few and far between.
I imagine that your extreme hostility has made the OP very disinclined to participate.
You have totally ignored the distinction between a "red flag" and an incompatibility which was explained to you in detail a number of posts back (you have not even acknowledged that this distinction was explained to you at all, which speaks volumes about the extent to which you are engaging in this discussion in good faith), and you continue to make sweeping generalisations about groups of people without acknowledgement of nuance or individual variation. This is not a constructive response.
1 year
Finding a bf/gf
X_Larsson:
I have never in real life heard a man expressing a preference for not being the only man in the relation.
I have never in real life heard a man expressing a preference for not being the only man in the relation.
Now you haveđź‘‹, perhaps.
Since mid-2018 i’ve identified as gender blurry, but let’s go back in time, all the way to 1988.
In and around 1988, i identified as a heterosexual man, and dressed and groomed like one. I lived with my (first) True Love: fully like a marriage, other than no church nor government legal sanction. It was a clearly worked out arrangement between us that whilst nominally we were monogamous, with clear communications and advanced notice, there could be options to be intimate with others. I had not at that time discovered the term “polyamory”, though in the future i’d learn that that’s what i am, far more with the literal loving/caring “amour” than sexuality, though that too.
She met someone else who pushed her buttons in a good way. It was someone we both knew, and i knew enough about him to know that he was a decent, upstanding guy. She and i agreed that we would continue as a couple in all senses, and that she would be loving him (elsewhere than at our home) concurrently.
I thought she was great for being able to enter into such an arrangement honestly and openly, i thought he was great for the same reason, and i thought i was damn good for being comfortable and at peace with the situation, seemingly with everyone getting their needs met and with me having an equivalent opportunity if such opportunity arose (which it did not during this arrangement’s time span).
Now, that’s not a preference on my part as much as wide-open acceptance, so in a very strict, pedantic interpretation of your phrasing, perhaps not a sufficient match. Seems to me it qualifies.
What I have stated are FACTS, not opinions. Facts are not hostile, neither am I.
Your source(s)? They sure read like opinions to me and others who’ve already replied here.
There may be a language issue. You might not have intended hostility, but myself and others who’ve already written (all native English speakers/writers it appears from nation flags) have sensed it strongly.
1 year