sagi...
"the feeling, perception, argument, or complaint that rules constrain is a child's argument."-

r u calling me a child?... cause' I think u just did.

let's be clear though- rules ARE limiting by their very nature. they take a complete open playing field and reduce it-
there's not even ground 2 stand on for arguing that rules are not limiting. rules generally say "you can't this," or "you must that" = how is this NOT limiting? Now... for one to complain or argue or bitch about rules- that could be cause for identifying 1 as "childish", but 2 say that rules are limiting or constraining is just 2 call a spade a spade. I won't get into it, but eye will mention 4 the record that "surely children have relationships (they just don't put rules or boundaries on them)," and if you (sagitarius) don't think so, i would say you probably don't have any (children that is).

However, what's of more pertinence here is that this has little 2 do with the original post. the "intention" of the "rules" that r mentioned in the original post are (i'm pretty sure, though correct me if i'm wrong Elizabeth) for understanding <knowing where each participant stands> and security <some guarantee of the agreement/ understanding that was made>, however, rules don't "guarantee" this, they just draw a line of distinction that confirms or disconfirms the agreement/ understanding that was made (which is 1 reason i suggest ending the relationship- isn't that what u <Elizabeth> set the rules 4- 2 know that you are on the same page as your partner?). rules also don't create a disciple- desire does.

so, rules or not? i suggest an understanding which states "this is what i wish 2 create in my relationship, if you desire the same, great- if not, let me know so I can move on 2 find 1 who wishes the same" and u must b clear and complete with this conversation, for example- if you're attempting an open relationship, but wish 2 discuss the interaction of sex with someone else b4 it takes place, then u must b clear about that being a need 4 u... and your partner must b clear about whether that works 4 him/ her. when 1 truly loves another, he/ she wishes the greatest joy and bliss 4 that person and acknowledges when he/ she does not fit that profile 4 the other.

happy flowing,

Tasi

I need to fully agree with you, but in order for this to work ALL partners NEED to at the core of their being want their partners and their partners partners to be happy above all else.

If one of the partners is selfish, then it throws everything out of wack because then they start counting sexual encounters, and days spend with the other partner, etc. When all the partners are on the same page, then everyone is looking out for everyone else, and no one gets to feeling left out.

Thanks, Goat.

My mind continued to ponder this idea, and I had some insight into what I call, for lack of a better term, Responsible Mono-amory, in which folks ares so fully aware of the rightness of mono-amory for themselves that they can enter with a full heart into a relationship with someone who is not by nature mono. When I mentioned that to a monogamous friend of my, he was taken aback by the fear that that instilled in him. We had a great conversation, in which he realized that much of his mono-matic instinct is about The Other being mono-amorous, and not necessarily that he had an innate need to relate to only one person.

I think this is pretty fascinating...

It would be wonderful and freeing to have "no rules", but when children are present in the relationship, I think there needs to be something....just like Z stated......In a perfect world everything would be "fluid and free", and thats how I loved when I was younger. But children need stability, continuity, rhythm.....it provides them with their safety net. They need to know, who is going to be in their life in the morning, in the afternoon, and who is going to put them to bed.......I don't want to upset their apple cart...because mom has more than one man in her life.....these men, may come and go....who knows? but, Right now there are two stable men in their life.....their father and my partner......I guess you could make an arguement though, if you need rules to protect the children then maybe your with the wrong partner......Yes, I thought of that, but I think its human nature to push and pull......and just so the core of our home is protected by boundries that can't be crossed by him or by me.....then I think we're good...

I agree with this.
My rules are for me.
My safe sex rules are about me being comfortabl/ healthy in my body.
Most of my rules are for me.
Like if people reduce themselves to calling me names, etc or treating me other than how I like, I take off.
This is easy, provided that they're not paying your rent or child support.
Sometimes with kids involved, you can't just take off by law.
It would seem that I spend the vast majority of my life as essentially single.
Which is fine by me.
I don't have to agree to anything which is the way I like it.
This doesn't work out so well for my friends with kids, who need to agree on all sorts of things (living, food, childcare methods, etc.)
It's great to be completely free all the time....until you have to take responsibility for your house, kids, pets, etc.
At that time, it's essentially enforced.
If you don't want your kid to be a screaming brat, you and your partner need to agree on behavior management strategies.
If you don't want to be evicted, you need to agree to pay the rent on time.
If you want to have your needs for whatever your perceptions of self-respect, "positive relating", good communication, etc. met in a relationship, then you need to find agreements there.
To NOT relate is to keep things at a fairly immature level.
That's where I like to relate...so I feel you.
That's why I'm a swingle.