Soulmate, flatemate, lifemate, checkmate

[vianegativa]

The question of the hour, boys and girls, is can you have a lover whom is NOT a partner but whom you share your life with anyway? If so, how sane a decision is such a thing?

This and other frightening moments of self-realization brought to you by redcub.

Thanks Alan.

Comments

[fargonrob.livejournal.com]

You speak of a best friend fuck buddy, not a partner. The partner thing is very all encompassing.

I have had two of these. These were the cubs I fledged. We were friends, were very close but not boyfriends, not partners, we has our lives, but unlike most friends, we also extended that friendship in bed and into play and there was much sharing and loving and caring, but we were not partners.

why is this even a question?

[henare.livejournal.com]

???

Re: why is this even a question?

[vianegativa.livejournal.com]

Because it seems to be the issue of my life of late.
Because I honestly don't know how to answer it.

Re: why is this even a question?

[henare.livejournal.com]

why does it need an answer? sometimes it's ok for questions to not have answers ...

[why am i asking all these quetions? >g<]

Re: why is this even a question?

[vianegativa.livejournal.com]

You're asking all these questions because you're an ANARCHIST!

It doesn't really need an answer, not really. I just want the universe to justify my feelings based on outmoded moral imperatives. :-)

[funkybearmartin.livejournal.com]

I *want* something like that to be okay AND accepted by society. But . . you'd probably only find it okay for you ( and your lover(s)). The rest of the world may not understand the model. . .and thus make such decisions difficult.

Really. . . what it the big fucking deal with terminology anyways? What is the difference between "partner" and "wife" or "husband" -- when it may or may not last more that 5 years anyways! Sheit... our relationship terminolgy should be based on how long 2 (or more ) people have considered themselves exceedingly important to another.

Perhaps I should ask another question of you though. . . . Why are you choosing to use the term "lover" instead of partner? Does that imply you have someone that is more or solely-primary to you? If so, then fine... but it complicates the relationship of all of you -- in terms of whole balance.

Not Solely Devoted

[vianegativa.livejournal.com]

The term lover is used solely to ellicit the same level of emotional connotation as partner without the air of committment. No, I'd never ask someone to be solely devoted to me in that way, especially since I'm not willing to add on another hubby.

I'm just getting all these different feelings for others, and frankly, others are reflecting back what I'm going through. I'm afraid I'm starting a commune. :-)

Re: Not Solely Devoted

[funkybearmartin.livejournal.com]

And, where do I apply?

Re: Not Solely Devoted

[chillycub.livejournal.com]

"Lover" - I would define as your boyfriend, but one step above it. Sharing your love, but not all of your life...and not necessarily having to live together.

"PArtner/Hubby" - Same as lover, but definitely living together which would probably entail a commitment of some sorts.

Just thought I lend my two bits of definition info, and it was as much for me as for you, maybe. My bear isn't ready to commit, but we just recently decided to become lovers. I like to call him my hubby and my bear, but I don't do it around him because to him they come with too much meaning behind them that we aren't ready for, such as commitments and living together. Although, spending every night at his house pretty much is as close as you can get to living there without actually *living there*!

I like that last sentence...a bit of innocent humor;-)

*HUGS*