Huh. Sua sees no problem with Trophy Wives, and I see no problem with this policy. It just gets better and better. 
dublos,
In deb’s post she referred to a man who expected to retain multiple girlfriends in a commited relationship (if that is possible) with her. deb also made it pretty clear that she prefers monogamous relationships.
Although my reply is couched within my own monogamous preferences, I have other reasons as well. I have known people that were polyamourous. If it is concensual activity, then it is none of my business. But a common thread is frequent betrayal about sexual activity and bisexual misrepresentations.
In this day and AIDS, a person’s life is on the line when it comes to intimacy. My own stance is that you place your life in the hands of too many people through polyamorous pursuits. YMMV. In a one-on-one relationship mutual respect and devotion drive a predictable and practicable course of events. Having more than two people in the chain allows for the irrational acts of one to affect many, with potentially dire consequences. In an earlier time such conduct might have had less risk involved. Today, it is nearly unthinkable in light of the possible consequences.
Sexual variety holds no temptation for me. I love myself enough to be more than satisfied with one good woman who feels the same way.
deb,
A way of cureing your eat the same as you friend.
Order Haggis!
If he eats this he really is twisted. 
Any dweeb that doesn’t pay when he asks someone out should never get a second chance. If he can’t afford it, there are entertainments that don’t cost much or are free. (The museum, park, zoo, etc.)
Also, any shmuck who wants to date around and have you be true to him deserves to be sent back to the showers. He wants his Kate and Edith too… er cake and eat it too.
Cheer up, there are nice guys out there. You just haven;t found them yet.
newbie alert
Okay, deb2world (and any others present), enlighten me as to the nature of your gender.
Now, I don’t want to flatter myself, but I believe I properly address each of the problems you’ve posed. I ask first, and am not squeamish about it; I call when I’ll say I call, excluding extreme circumstances; I’m not really interested in sex (I plan to abstain until marriage); I pay for dates; I show up when I say I’ll show up; I order my own meals; I have no desire to date more than one woman at once, although I do have several female platonic friends; I can properly use a semicolon, as demonstrated.
So what’s the deal? I’m in the same rut as aynrandlover and Louie. It’s important to me that I know the person fairly well before I consider something romantic, but somehow women who claim to want that don’t, and by the time they get to know me, they “really like me as a friend,” but “aren’t interested in anything more.” Hence the several female platonic friends.
Now, I do just so happen to be as ugly as the hind end of a baboon with an extraordinarily unattractive hind end, but I’d like to imagine that that has nothing to do with it.
So, ladies, what’s the problem?
/newbie alert
I really don’t have an answer to that. I have men platonic friends where I know the relationship will never become romantic. And we share with each other the trials of romantic relationships we each are in. This platonic relationship is mutual and usually we have discussed the fact that that is what we want.
I am leary of giving advice since all I will be doing is shooting in the dark. So I will leave that to some other female who wanders into this thread. Ok I can’t resist some advice. I find honesty is good. Discussing the type of relationship you plan to have with your dating partner is necessary.
Now dublos & Zenster I had a reply to what I was intending when I wrote that oh so debated sentence, but then trashed it when I realized it is more fun to watch you two debate about the meaning. It is also more educational to read the thoughts of you two. Carry on.
Zenster & deb2world
Deb apparently has a clarification she’s witholding on order to allow us to continue this debate, Deb, please feel free to do so, a clarification of the actual situation described isn’t likely to slow debate on my taking issue with Zenster’s comment on the original statement. My issue is just a matter of symatics, i.e. I feel Zenster chose the wrong word to describe the pond scum like behavoir, I am presuming (perhaps incorrectly) due to a lack of knowledge on the meaning of the word.
Zenster, reading your post a couple of times now I am apparently not being sufficiently clear, so bear with me while I try again.
From Deb’s original post, this time adding bolding:
Which I believe correctly paraphrases as, the guy(s) in question wanted her to have relations with only them, while they were allowed to have relations with other women. (This being only the guy’s viewpoint, and not Deb’s preference in the matter.)
Your paraphrase on the other hand:
seems to miss the point that the guy(s) expects her to have relations only with them, regardless of her relationship needs or desires.
This it the crux of my complaint at your statement:
A statement which I read as identifying the above behavior as polyamorous. A man desiring relations with multiple women, each of whom can have relations only with him ignoring the needs or desires of the women involved, is not a polyamorous relationship. If you have read through the FAQ available throught the link I provided, you would notice that the behavior that Deb described and I have just paraphrased, and you very correctly identified as worthy of pond scum is not polyamorous behavior. This is my one, and only complaint with your words.
I have no problem with your prefering a monogamous lifestyle for yourself, and I laud your open mindedness about polyamory being none of your business if it is consentual activity. I feel the same way about your monogamy.
I do at least raise an eyebrow and make a quiet Ahem noise at the implication in the sentence (bolding mine)
which could easily be taken to imply that those who find a poly life style to be their cup of tea do not love themselves sufficently, but I also realise that the implication I am reading into this may not be an accurate statement on your position, so please clarify that if you choose to continue this conversation.
Thank you.
-Doug
What dublos said in that last part. Zenster, could you at least clarify that’s not what you meant? 'Cause I read that, too.
Esprix
I merely mean that out of respect for my own self, that the love of one woman is completely satisfying. Nothing more, nothing less. How, what, where, why and when you are satisfied and by whom is absolutely none of my business.
Zenster
Since I can paraphrase that as:
“Out of respect for my own needs and preferences for a relationship, the love of one woman is completely satisfying.”
My response is… Glad to hear it and more power to you.
-Doug
Dammit. I knew I should have chosen ‘ettiquette’ as my handle.
Eh, a deep friendship is integral, but not necessarily a “step on the way to more”, you know? I think that the best relationships I had were founded on light friendship, mutual attraction with explicit statements about that, leading to a romantic interest which grew with the deep friendship. But then, I’m single, so what the hell do I know?
As well, with the ones that wouldn’t want to ruin a good friendship it was definitely a case of non-explicit intentions. I try and be better about it now, at least to make my own intentions a little more than ambiguous.
aynrandlover I think I understand what you are saying, but let me paraphrase and see. You find that all an intimate relationship requires is liking the person just a little as a person and then after the intimacy has started, then your relationship grows into a more deep friendship. Is that correct? If that is so, I can see why you do that what with your experience with the “let’s just be friends” women.
I am an eternal optimist and like to look at the bright side of everything, so I see those women who said “let’s not spoil our friendship” as a good thing. They taught you how to be honest about your intentions at the start of a relationship.
Ah yes guys, I have a date for tomorrow night. This guy asked me out. (RAH RAH) We have plans to do a nice restaurant. He is gainfully employed, a good talker and laughs at my jokes. Hopefully it will be a good date, but we shall see. Unfortunately I think he is the kind who is not very punctual. How patient should one be with that kind of person–note I am punctual to a fault?
Bingo!
Thank you for understanding and reading into my words all of the meaning intended.
Oh bullshit. You had your chance. I don’t want to hear it. . .
Tripler
At least you were polite enough to poop before you picked her up. I dated a guy who “liked my bathroom better than his” and would show up early just so he could stink up my house.