I came across this toast tonight, and since I have a few shots and beers in me I’ll give my ideas on it.
Here’s to a long life and a merry one.
A quick death and an easy one.
A pretty girl and a loyal one.
A cold beer and another one.
– Louis Henry
I read this and thought to myself: “Self, how about a ‘Pretty girl and an easy one’ or ‘A pretty girl and another one’. I’m okay with a not so loyal one.”
The arguments against polyamory, polygamy and other plural relationships almost always comes down to religion in this country: Mormons and Muslims are wrong, one man / one woman Christians are “right”. You see this on every comment forum on every article about polygamy or polyamory on the Internet. So when I came across this article on AccessToInsight.org, a Buddhist resource, I found it interesting and thought I’d post a passage of the article here since it deals with non-monogamy, and more specifically ethical non-monogamy. In other teachings, the Buddha promotes personal responsibility for your actions and ethical treatment of others. The Buddha taught that those in relationships should not have secrets between them because secrets lead to mistrust, suspicion and jealousy; which we all know makes a relationship unbearable at best, and deadly at it’s worst.
There’s much more in the teachings of the Buddha and the writings of those that have come since, but here is the passage I came across tonight.
From “A Happy Married Life, A Buddhist Perspective, by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda”
To the question of whether Buddhists can keep more than one wife, the direct answer is not available in the Buddha’s teaching, because as mentioned earlier, the Buddha did not lay down any religious laws with regard to married life although he has given valuable advice on how to lead a respectable married life.
Tradition, culture and the way of life as recognized by the majority of a particular country must also be considered when we practice certain things pertaining to our lives. Some religions say that a man can have only one wife whilst others say a man can have more than one wife.
Although the Buddha did not mention anything regarding the number of wives a man could have, he explicitly mentioned in His discourses that should a married man go to another woman out of wedlock, that could become the cause of his own downfall and he would have to face numerous other problems and disturbances.
The Buddha’s way of teaching is just to explain the situation and the consequences. People can think for themselves as to why certain things are good and certain things are bad. The Buddha did not lay down rules about how many wives a man should or should not have which people are forced to follow. However, if the laws of a country stipulate that marriages must be monogamous, then such laws must be complied with, because the Buddha was explicit about His followers respecting the laws of a country, if those laws were beneficial to all.
This isn’t polyamory related (or is it?), but it’s funny.
Last Thursday comedian Chelsea Handler, one of Demi Moore’s friends, told Piers Morgan on his CNN show about Demi and Ashton: “I think they probably had a lot of good times with some other women… Clearly they had a lot of threesomes, that led to twosomes without Demi and that leads to a divorce.”
Clearly Ms. Handler lives in an alternate universe where monogamous people never cheat, because that is what she is implying: If they have been monogamous Ashton Kutcher would never had cheated on Demi Moore.
I call bullshit. Cheaters are cheaters regardless of whether or not the relationship is open-ended or closed-ended.
If Ashton Kutcher cheated on Demi Moore it’s because he’s a dick. Nothing more. Open relationship or not Kutcher would have cheated. I don’t know why he cheated if they had an open relationship, but I assume because maybe A) it wasn’t as open as everyone thought and it was easier (less confrontational) for Kutcher to cheat than to ask permission, B) Kutcher couldn’t or wouldn’t follow the ground rules they set, C) he got a bigger thrill from cheating (danger sex) than he did from having permission.
Regardless, Ashton Kutcher betrayed Demi Moore in some manner and that is the reason they are getting divorced. It’s not because they had an open relationship, it’s because of the way the people in the relationship acted. Plain and simple.
Lastly, only they know what really happened. Nobody knows what really goes on inside someone else’s relationship or marriage. You only see what they want you to see. And things like open relationships, polyamory, swinging, etc. are just easy scapegoats for people who don’t want to take responsibility for blowing-up their own relationship, because a constant of the universe is nobody takes responsibility for their own actions until they run-out of other people or things to blame them on.
I recently listened to Episode 4 of Pedestrian Polyamory’s podcast: All About the Penis – Size DOES Matter. Throughout it Shira B. Katz talks about how she is a size queen except when… Well, there were a number of situations when she is a size queen, but isn’t, such as with oral and anal sex. I can see how different size cocks work better in some scenarios than in others, so I won’t fault her for this thinking. It just makes me think: The lady is a size queen except when she isn’t. Okay, I can dig it.
I personally think cock size has nothing to do with polyamory and more to do with personal preference, casual sex, swinging and cuckolding. However, this got me thinking: Throughout the podcast Shira often refers to “big” cocks and “small” cocks, but never says what she personally considers big or small. Cock size is a very controversial and subjective topic since 7″ might be “big” to one woman and 10″ to another. Conversely, 6″ might be considered a small dick to one woman while another thinks anything less than 4″ is “small”.
So, through this informal and completely unscientific poll I’d like to know what you men and women who like cocks in your mouth, ass and pussy (if you have one) consider “small” or “large”, and what makes someone a “size queen”?
UPDATE: I am assuming length/girth proportionate, so not “long and skinny” or “short and fat”. I thought about adding girth however the combinations of length/girth would make these questions painfully long and over-complicated.
P.S. I prefer the term “cunt” but was afraid I’d offend some people’s gentle sensibilities.