[ SECRET POST #2895 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2895 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 062 secrets from Secret Submission Post #414.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that the idea that it's the "perfect" solution is laughable, but I don't think this means that it can never work. For people who don't have a single polyamorous bone in their body, yeah, someone's going to get the short end of the stick.

But I think you're very wrong about the idea that someone will ALWAYS lose out. A polyamorous relationship can work if everyone is in love with each other individually rather than just "liking" the other individual for the sake of the person they love. You're generalizing your own feelings too much here.

[(Anonymous)]

Everyone doesn't have to be in love with everyone. It helps a lot if the metamours ( or co-partners if you will) are on friendly terms.

I am in one such relationship and while us girls aren't in love with each other, we are very good friends and enjoy cuddling up together.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I should have been clearer -- I meant "like" in the sense of "pleasantly tolerating." I don't think that a polyamorous relationship works well if part of it is just putting up with another part. But I see what you mean about two people not necessarily needing to be in love.

[(Anonymous)]

No harm no foul.

[(Anonymous)]

They're my favourite kind of fictional threesome, where not all partners are in love or have sex with each other, especially if A has sex with B but is in love with C, while B is in love with A but has sex with C. I was searching Wikipedia for terminology about this but it was pretty lacking.

Is there a term for this kind of poly relationship? Or are they too fictional to have a name?

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, but monogamy is ok too and it's not necessary to have all triangles to end in any kind of polyamorous relationship.

In fact, if everyone who likes OT3s could understand that instead of considering themselves superior and even bash people who aren't into OT3s (or "educate" them, because really I don't need to be told that polyamorous relationships can work, I just don't like it), we'll be able to agree that YKINMKATO and move on.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about at least having one side of the triangle "liking" each other.

I accidentally stumbled across a threesome/triangle story where Fenris and Anders agreed to share Hawke (yes, Dragon Age II). It made me realise a triabgle relationship can be something more than two people fighting over a person who loves both of them - a story type I hate because I really dislike all the jealousy play.