A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Types of relationships for gays
Types of relationships for gays  [message #59108] Thu, 15 October 2009 00:47 Go to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



arich posted an interesting reply in the "first love first contact" thread. It got me thinking about different types of relationship possibilities. I've been in 2 different types.

The first was with a gay guy. It lasted for 10 years. We had a close relationship, but it was not exclusive, and although I awoke in his bed many a morning, we never moved in together. I liked him a whole lot and wanted to move in together and make it exclusive, but that just wasn't his thing so we fell apart. But the time I spent in that relationship made me feel that this is a bona fide workable type of relationship for some guys.

My second type of relationship is with a hetero lady. This has the exclusivitivity and closeness that I wanted. And the melding of two lives that comes with it is really cool. When I opened up to her about my being gay, the closeness started growing even more rapidly. This is totally different from my previous relationship where closeness stopped at a certain point. An exclusive committed relationship is like giving your life away to a person who gives their live away too. You really do not have your own life anymore and it becomes a matter of we rather than a matter of I.

I find that this is the type of relationship I have always craved. But committed exclusivity wasn't for my guy mentioned in the previous paragraph and it isn't for arich per the quotation below.

arich said;
"Long term? Yeah so to speak, thing is by the time I reached young adulthood I was of the mind that it was pointless for people with a more or less same sex orientation to be a part of caricature of a hetero relationship. I believed then, as I do now, we could and maybe should be part of something much more dynamic, not promiscuous mind you for I have felt the sting of that way of life, but a loving relationship amongst a group is I think quiet possible and maybe even more appropriate for those that have no intent to procreate. As we can see even amongst heteros long term monogamous relationships are becoming the exception rather than the rule. So I wonder as a at this concept of having only one loved one for a life time."

Having enjoyed an open relationship, what arich says seems quite valid to me.

So as I see it we have 3 relationship types so far
1. open
2. committed
3. dynamic

I guess the preferred type is a matter of personal taste.

Can you think of more possibilities?

Which type of relationship sounds best to you?

Macky



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Types of relationships for gays  [message #59113 is a reply to message #59108] Thu, 15 October 2009 11:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Very interesting, Macky. I've never been lucky enough to have any long-term loving relationship with a guy; the nearest I've come to one was sharing a room with Peter when I was in the navy - but that can't have been for much more than a month or two.

But I've been married and faithful for nearly 47 years now and agree with you completely about it being 'we' not 'I'.

I don't think the name 'dynamic' is adequate for what I understood arich to propose. But I think it possible for a group of friends to love each other enough to want to please each other sexually without being promiscuous, although there are difficulties. Maybe there are such groups - something like in Armistead Maupin's "Tales of the City". I'm inclined to think that most of the people I have known would be likely to find one of such a group more attractive than the rest and so wish to make a relationship with him exclusive.

And the only people I've known who would clearly not want to do that are either so pretty that they could choose their partners or too unable to commit to anyone. But they don't form part of a set up like the 'group of friends' I was thinking of above.

I do think that this is an area of life where stories can experiment fictionally with ways for gay people to relate to each other. Real life experiments take too long and can easily lead to disasters of various kinds.

And wish fulfilment isn't so stupid as all that. It's only by thinking about what one really wants that one gets prepared to take an opportunity when one arrives. Sometimes I think that, without admitting it, that is what people get out of praying - the knowledge of what it is they really want.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Types of relationships for gays  [message #59115 is a reply to message #59108] Thu, 15 October 2009 14:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
arich is currently offline  arich

Really getting into it
Location: Seaofstars
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 563



It is all problematic really; humans seem to me to be quite superficial for the most part, sadly, but what more is that than cultural conditioning?

What I proposed would entail all three parts open, between a select few, committed but dynamic enough to let go and invite in predicated not on appearance but commonality and desire. Love is not possession it is to desire the best for that loved one even if means to let go. Truely are we so shallow that it comes down to just being pretty or not?

What I am saying for sure is that human kind I think has allowed it self to be put under the thumb of a few self seeking narcissist (LOL am I over stating again or just a truth), why do we insist on continuing to limit our selves at very least to ideology’s that no long fit this ever changing paradigm?



People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
Re: Types of relationships for gays  [message #59118 is a reply to message #59113] Thu, 15 October 2009 15:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



"Very interesting, Macky. I've never been lucky enough to have any long-term loving relationship with a guy;"

It was a real privilege Anthony. I still often think of him and what might have happened. He seems to have dropped off the face of the earth. Of course that is possible literally, as he would be going on 85 now. What we had was very good, but I needed more. I knew from the get-go that an exclusive relationship would involve sacrifice on my part. But I am rewarded in spades for those sacrifices.



"But I've been married and faithful for nearly 47 years now and agree with you completely about it being 'we' not 'I'."

Married and faithful for 22 years here. If she were OK with it, I might have sought out a boyfriend. But since that would hurt her, I honestly do not want a boyfriend. It's weird isn't it? We like boys, but we do not want boyfriends. We don't want them because what we have with our wives is too precious. Nothing throws me into a depression more quickly than when my wife is disappointed with me. Job number 1 for me is looking after her happiness. In fact, making her happy is the only thing that makes me happy.

"I don't think the name 'dynamic' is adequate for what I understood arich to propose. But I think it possible for a group of friends to love each other enough to want to please each other sexually without being promiscuous, although there are difficulties. Maybe there are such groups - something like in Armistead Maupin's "Tales of the City". I'm inclined to think that most of the people I have known would be likely to find one of such a group more attractive than the rest and so wish to make a relationship with him exclusive."

I suppose what makes it dynamic in my mind is the thought that people in the group keep finding new things about each other that makes them more attractive so that sometimes they are closer to one and sometimes to another, everyone realizing that closeness does not mean commitment.


"And wish fulfilment isn't so stupid as all that. It's only by thinking about what one really wants that one gets prepared to take an opportunity when one arrives. Sometimes I think that, without admitting it, that is what people get out of praying - the knowledge of what it is they really want."

That's exactly what prayer is Anthony. Only, religious people tend to say that it is "god talking to them" instead of their determining though self examination.

Macky



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Types of relationships for gays  [message #59119 is a reply to message #59115] Thu, 15 October 2009 15:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



Hi arich,

I don't think that people in committed relationships are kowtowing to social norms. I think it is a need that some people have. People without this need can form different types of relationships.

I know of a couple bi married folk. One has a steady boyfriend and is sexually involved with him and his wife is OK with that. I know another bi guy who brings a boyfriend to bed with him and his wife, and they both like the third. I just could in no way handle that shit. It's just not me. I was wondering. This relationship style that you talk about. Do you think it would be similar to Polyamory?

http://www.polyamorysociety.org/

Macky



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Types of relationships for gays  [message #59120 is a reply to message #59115] Thu, 15 October 2009 16:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Yes, arich, I think cynicism about human relationships is even often justified, but what I'm interested in is what is the best we can hope for.

Most of the old guys on here would say that they have fallen in love. Sometimes it doesn't last; those for whom it does last are very lucky or manage their lives really well - at least in my opinion, because it was certainly what I wanted when I was young.

What do you think is the ideal relationship? Do you think the ideal applies to all ages? I wonder whether what is right for the young is still right for the old (me for example). When I was young I certainly wanted more than one experience (sexual? loving? both?) but now it would be very hard to start again and try to form a new relationship. I guess that is why so few widows and widowers remarry - would you agree?

And I do know of several lasting gay partnerships - one couple that I introduced to each other in 1956! (I'm quite proud of that.) But I don't know of any lasting groups or 'non-standard' relationships although I'd like to know such people. I think I'm open-minded about such things and I would certainly welcome such knowledge.

I don't think humankind has accepted a constricting morality willingly. It never has, in my opinion, but the nature of government and law has only for about 150 years seriously attempted to control our private lives. But I agree it has taken a huge effort to do away with oppressive homophobic laws in just a smallish part of the world.

But there are societies which still treat women as subservient beings and it is quite difficult to persuade people in such societies that is is better to treat all people equally whatever their orientation, sex, skin colour, and so on. You notice I left religion out of the list because some religions support sorts of discrimination that I think ought not to be allowed because they don't help to increase human happiness.

But now I've started talking about the value of life and perhaps I should get back to the shallows for a bit.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Types of relationships for gays  [message #59122 is a reply to message #59119] Thu, 15 October 2009 18:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
arich is currently offline  arich

Really getting into it
Location: Seaofstars
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 563



"I don't think that people in committed relationships are kowtowing to social norms. I think it is a need that some people have."

Not sure what this had to do with what I was talking about.?

On the other hand I do think we act according to cultural conditioning the world over.

I hate labels but yeah, though I don’t have much time at the mo to explore that site it sorta sounds applicable. I must add that any kind of relationship no matter its makeup should not in my mind be taken lightly and must be mutual and loving. Wink



People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
Re: Types of relationships for gays  [message #59123 is a reply to message #59120] Thu, 15 October 2009 18:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
arich is currently offline  arich

Really getting into it
Location: Seaofstars
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 563



A:
“What do you think is the ideal relationship?”

R:
I can only answer you with another question one of my standards for you. Why do you ask? I am not you nor are you me.

A:
“When I was young I certainly wanted more than one experience (sexual? loving? both?)”

R:
Gee Anthony I would hope for anyone’s sake both. Why in the world did you have to ask that?

A:
“I guess that is why so few widows and widowers remarry - would you agree?”

R:
LOL you slay me Anthony, I can assure you I will be neither so that will just have to be another one of those questions you have to explore on your own…

A:
”And I do know of several lasting gay partnerships - one couple that I introduced to each other in 1956! (I'm quite proud of that.)”

R:
You must indeed be very proud to know that you are the glue that has held that marriage together all these years!

A:
“I don't think humankind has accepted a constricting morality willingly. It never has, in my opinion, but the nature of government and law has only for about 150 years seriously attempted to control our private lives. But I agree it has taken a huge effort to do away with oppressive homophobic laws in just a smallish part of the world.

But there are societies which still treat women as subservient beings and it is quite difficult to persuade people in such societies that is is better to treat all people equally whatever their orientation, sex, skin colour, and so on. You notice I left religion out of the list because some religions support sorts of discrimination that I think ought not to be allowed because they don't help to increase human happiness.

But now I've started talking about the value of life and perhaps I should get back to the shallows for a bit.
R:
Needless to say I know you are serious, just didn’t know that you had left the shallows!

::-)



People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
Re: Types of relationships for gays  [message #59124 is a reply to message #59123] Thu, 15 October 2009 19:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Dear arich: Answers marked A2:

A:
“What do you think is the ideal relationship?”

R:
I can only answer you with another question one of my standards for you. Why do you ask? I am not you nor are you me.

A2: I was just asking in case your ideal did not begin with love. Actually I was fairly sure it did.

A:
“When I was young I certainly wanted more than one experience (sexual? loving? both?)”

R:
Gee Anthony I would hope for anyone’s sake both. Why in the world did you have to ask that?

A2: I was trying to establish in your mind that I am a member of the human race with suitable weaknesses. And I wanted plenty of sexual encounters even if they weren't loving although I was always looking for love (I think).

A:
“I guess that is why so few widows and widowers remarry - would you agree?”

R:
LOL you slay me Anthony, I can assure you I will be neither so that will just have to be another one of those questions you have to explore on your own…

A2: On the contrary, arich, I think you might if you do fall in love and form a committed relationship (even if other people are part of it) and that partner dies first. That's what widowership is. (I really don't see that it makes any difference to a guy whether it is a wife or husband that dies.) But I was trying to see whether you were open to that.

A:
”And I do know of several lasting gay partnerships - one couple that I introduced to each other in 1956! (I'm quite proud of that.)”

R:
You must indeed be very proud to know that you are the glue that has held that marriage together all these years!

A2: No. I could wish - but all I did was bring two magnets within range of each others' field of attraction.

A:
“I don't think humankind has accepted a constricting morality willingly. It never has, in my opinion, but the nature of government and law has only for about 150 years seriously attempted to control our private lives. But I agree it has taken a huge effort to do away with oppressive homophobic laws in just a smallish part of the world.

But there are societies which still treat women as subservient beings and it is quite difficult to persuade people in such societies that is is better to treat all people equally whatever their orientation, sex, skin colour, and so on. You notice I left religion out of the list because some religions support sorts of discrimination that I think ought not to be allowed because they don't help to increase human happiness.

But now I've started talking about the value of life and perhaps I should get back to the shallows for a bit.

R:
Needless to say I know you are serious, just didn’t know that you had left the shallows!

A2: Nor did I but if I had gone on to write about what does increase human happiness both for men and women maybe I'd have got to be boring. Not to ME, of course!

Love,
Anthony
unclassifiable  [message #59125 is a reply to message #59108] Thu, 15 October 2009 21:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



I've been watching this develop. The only answer is whatever works for the people concerned at the time.

Why classify it?

Me? I'm naturally promiscuous, choosing monogamy. This would be the same whatever sex I was partnered with.

How does that get classified?



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: unclassifiable  [message #59126 is a reply to message #59125] Thu, 15 October 2009 21:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



Wouldn't that be a committed exclusive relationship? I think all guys are naturally promiscuous, so that doesn't make you unclassifiable in my book.

Why classify it? So we can recognize all the different types of relationships when we come upon them and have a better understanding of the people in those relationships, because we have kicked it around here.

It does not speak well of me, if I admit that there was a time when I thought threesomes were sick. But I got to know some people in a threesome and I've come to understand how they view it and do it. Not for me. But at least I can now accept it as a valid form of relationship. Hey, it works for them. At least I've eradicated some more prejudice out of my world.

Just because monogamy is right for you and Anthony and me and a lot of others here does not mean it's right for everyone. I would like to understand, accept, and appreciate folks who are different.

Often, there are prejudices there lurking in me where I least expect them. I think it's beneficial to stop and consider these things and find as much as I possibly can, as being acceptable in others. I think acceptance and confirmation of people's right to be what they want to be is uplifting and beneficial to both parties.



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: unclassifiable  [message #59127 is a reply to message #59126] Thu, 15 October 2009 22:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



I never said it was right for me. I just said that I choose it.

But once you codify and classify then others start to judge.

The rationale for monogamy is the irresponsibility of bringing back into a partnership a disease. While one may take one's own risks one may not take that risk by proxy for others.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: unclassifiable  [message #59140 is a reply to message #59125] Fri, 16 October 2009 07:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



"I'm naturally promiscuous, choosing monogamy."

I think this is me, too.

I want to be promiscuous. I think I'd like an open relationship (similar to Brian and Justin from Queer as Folk). Or perhaps a semi-open one.

But Ryan doesn't want an open relationship. And up until now I've tried to keep him happy. In the future he might let me experiment a bit more. I hope he does.

Relationships as timmy says are about constant negotiating and renegotiating. No one label fits a relationship indefinitely. People change and so do relationships.

I think our views are conditioned by society, even if we aren't trying for them to be. But our views change and we can act outside of what we've been socialised to see as norms.

I think it's healthy to view relationships as "what works" instead of trying to see them as anything "greater" than that. I don't think there is anything mystical or sacred about a working relationship. But it can be beautiful and powerful. Just like how a tranquil lake or savage ocean can be beautiful despite being entirely natural.

[Updated on: Fri, 16 October 2009 07:15]




Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Exclusive partnership  [message #59141 is a reply to message #59127] Fri, 16 October 2009 10:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



I don't think disease is the main thing, Timmy, it's the other danger that is worse. As sex is the best way of being really nice to someone, having sex with someone not your partner is liable to spark love and then what do you do if you have a partner?

I'm sure I could have fallen in love with someone else. Those of us that have found partners surely recognise that they might have found someone else if they hadn't ever encountered the partner they have - even if one is very choosy.

It can be seen as a circular argument. The reason for sticking to one partner is because one wants to stick with one partner. But the travails and heartache when a partnership breaks up are very real and in some ways worse than bereavement. Anyway I think I'd rather be bereaved than betrayed.

And, of course, if you are QUITE sure that sex with someone else won't risk that spark because you couldn't love them then why on earth are you considering doing it?

And there are many places and societies where there was no danger of disease; would infidelity be acceptable in them? No, of course not.

Love,
Anthony

PS and the sex of the partners, as far as I can see, makes no difference.
Re: unclassifiable  [message #59146 is a reply to message #59140] Fri, 16 October 2009 14:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



"But Ryan doesn't want an open relationship. And up until now I've tried to keep him happy. In the future he might let me experiment a bit more. I hope he does."

I hope he does too, Saben. Two guys having a special thing at a young age is wbeautiful. But, I think that if I had done an exclusive relationship in my 20s, I would really have missed something. The freedom to try different types of relationships with different people is what led me to desire an exclusive relationship with one person. I think that open relationships are better for young people, because that's what worked for me.

Not to say that I have conquered the desire to explore. I just control it for the greater enjoyment of a stable exclusive relationship. If it were not important to my wife, I suppose that I would enjoy a special male friend. But for me, at this time in my life, nothing is more important than building the relationship with my life-partner. One just can't replicate 22 years of growing together in a short term relationship.

I guess that what I'm saying is that age has a lot to do with it. I think that "sowing wild oats" is more than just a humorous maxim. To me, it seems to be an important stage in a man's sexual development. If a guy doesn't do it sooner, before a committed relationship, I think that there is a much greater chance that he will do it after, perhaps harming a committed relationship in progress at that time.



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: unclassifiable  [message #59182 is a reply to message #59146] Wed, 21 October 2009 05:45 Go to previous message
ray2x is currently offline  ray2x

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 429



I so believe in a relationship with yourself. No matter what type of relationship one is in (gay, bi, trans, straight, poli, etc), one must be in a good standing with self. You can be your own best friend or worst enemy.



Raymundo
Previous Topic: An inflatible for gay boys
Next Topic: Sex offenders have jobs as charity trustees
Goto Forum: