I believe in partners being open. If you want to be monogamous and you want your partner to be monogamous, you should find someone who wants that life. If you want to get married to one person or two persons, but have secondaries you don’t marry, and everyone agrees, then that should be supported. If you agree to talk about everything or talk about nothing that happens with others, then stick to that.
If you change your mind or discover something new about yourself that changes the situation, you should discuss that so that everyone can decide what to do going forward.
In the case of someone who wrote a letter to an advice columnist, a married woman has fallen in love with another man, but still loves her husband, but her husband doesn’t know. The new man is her brother.
Things seemed to melt away as my brother massaged my back. I felt an onrush of relief which soon turned into something more sensual. My brother wasn't responsible for what happened next, and did not take advantage of me, although he did go along with it. I remember feeling closer to him than I ever did with my husband, whom I love dearly and on whom I have never cheated.
I asked my brother to take off my bra and then my knickers, the sex was prolonged, deliberate and extremely satisfying. We talked openly about it the following morning, had no regrets, but agreed it simply should not happen again.
People should not go behind the back of a spouse when there is an expectation of monogamy or some other form of polyamory. They should have had a regret: that neither of them discussed this with their spouses before going ahead. But to be fair, it was unexpected. It was a moment of discovery for her, and perhaps for him.
I find it appalling that I committed incest with my brother, I have confessed the sin, and was helped by a very understanding priest. Yet the experience has given me a sort of erotic charge and a sense of personal self-confidence that I feel is wrong.
When we embraced last Christmas at a family get-together it was in a normal brother/sister fashion, but I found it sexually exciting. If I know he'll be present on any occasion, I put on my best clothes and even wear fancy lingerie, though I have not the slightest intention, or expectation, of any physical contact.
The poor woman appears to be conflicted more because of societal prejudice against consanguineous love than she is about going behind her husband’s and sister-in-law’s backs. The former shouldn’t trouble her. The latter is where the real issue sits.
Her love for her husband has increased, not diminished. If the same thing has happened to her brother’s love for his wife, then they are all benefitting, especially since she loves her brother more than she did before. It would be great if they could all discuss the matter like mature adults and come to some understanding. She enjoyed sex with her brother, and if everyone is agreeable, why deny her?
No comments:
Post a Comment
To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.
If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.
IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.