Samantha Getting Started

[Mojo123]

...I sometimes wonder if I am wasting my time posting my story here...

Of course you're not — as a narcissistic attention-whore, you NEED this place & the comments. Good or bad. You are here so often & commenting so frequently, one has to wonder how you maintain a marriage or act as an uber powerful CEO-type. Unless…

[WantMore]

...I sometimes wonder if I am wasting my time posting my story here...

Of course you're not — as a narcissistic attention-whore, you NEED this place & the comments. Good or bad. You are here so often & commenting so frequently, one has to wonder how you maintain a marriage or act as an uber powerful CEO-type. Unless…

Eh, bullshit! We most all carry around a phone dont we?

Yeah SM if you cant ever be live in the room, only watching on video or a monitor becomes boring.

Yo gotta mix it up to keep it fun, and that seems to be your problems. She needs to offer live in room, videos, hiding in a closet, recordings, etc, etc. Ive always felt that is the tradeoff for all the fun she gets to have. If the girl isnt willing to be creative and thoughtful to the hubby, what the hell is the point to being with a hotwife for a hubby?

Thats why we say team sport. She is just as willing as him to show respect to eachother.

[SSQ]

SSQ- if I may be so bold to ask; from the female perspective why is it hard for you to be watched by your husband but easier for you to have public or semi public sex. Is it the anonymity and lack of intimate atmosphere at the places you have sex, compared to the intimacy of having your most valued and intimate partner, your husband present?
I'm interested in the female perspective as I Trudy value your insights and experiences.

No, it's definitely not anonymity because I am known at the dungeons and sex clubs where I fuck. Clearly not by everyone, but there would be lots of people there who do.

I suspect for me, it's tied into my having brought H into the lifestyle rather than vice versa, so I worry about him having mixed emotions about being there and the experience being ruined, or diminished. If we were having a threesome of some sort, I'd know he was enjoying himself and having a good time so there would be no need to worry. I do like putting on a show, but if one of my regular sex partners was there, I'd rather have him or her join in than watch. After all, more people, more ways to be pleasured

And yeah... Having my husband around for recreational sex is find. I would never want him around if I was with a partner that I was making love with. I need a little privacy! I could still fuck that person with H around but it wouldn't be an intimate experience. And that's totally okay too. Balance

By the way, who's Trudy?

[Iamtheman]

And yeah... Having my husband around for recreational sex is find. I would never want him around if I was with a partner that I was making love with. I need a little privacy! I could still fuck that person with H around but it wouldn't be an intimate experience. And that's totally okay too. Balance

^^^This!

This is where I think Samantha is, and I'm glad that someone with credibility on the forum brings this comment to the conversation. I couldn't articulate it well and SSQ's words are perfectly chosen. This is the balance that I was trying to reference and the middle ground that may be possible for Sam's Man and Samantha.

[SmilingHusband]

I would never want him around if I was with a partner that I was making love with. )

I think this is where most husbands would call "foul!" SSQ, you are a unique person here, in many ways. that works for you. It's very "poly".

I don't think that works for many guys here, myself included. If SC wanted that, we would part ways for sure, and quickly.....

Just my 2 cents.

[Samanthasman]

SSQ- if I may be so bold to ask; from the female perspective why is it hard for you to be watched by your husband but easier for you to have public or semi public sex. Is it the anonymity and lack of intimate atmosphere at the places you have sex, compared to the intimacy of having your most valued and intimate partner, your husband present?
I'm interested in the female perspective as I Trudy value your insights and experiences.

I am not SSQ, nor have I done anything on this forum but lurk, but I can offer my point of view on the situation. Warning: many words ahead.

They say water only flows downhill, and so it goes for the power dynamic in a relationship.

When we first meet a man, we form a first impression, like anyone else does in any other situation. A big part of that first impression is our perception of the man's power. That power takes on many forms—sexual, social, physical, financial, protective, and, last but not least, internal. The last of these crudely be summarized as "poise" or "confidence", the main difference being that those terms are confounded to some extent with social dominance.

To make a stupid video-game analogy, let's say a man has a certain number of "hit points" from that first impression.

Like actual video-game hit points, these are easy to lose ... and VERY hard to gain back.

Now let's say I'm Sam here, and have allowed myself to become infatuated** with a guy WITHOUT my DH being "in on it" from the start.
Let me just put this out there right now: Slippery slope, gents.
We want Decision Makers.
Often wrong, never unsure.
We also want breathless hot sex, spontaneous fun, exhausting orgasms just below the threshold of pain, strong arms around us when we cry, and no-bullshit answers to tough questions. When those things are lacking, we'll often take money instead. (The more they're lacking, the more places between the $ and the decimal point. Lol. I digress.)
But, more than ANY of those things, we want direction.
Direction.

In this case, *IF* DH would happen to catch me in flagrante delicto with my new love interest, there would be exactly two possible outcomes:
(a) he allows it to proceed, with a massive loss of hit points;
(b) he stops it—perhaps violently, if the two men involved are both the escalating type.

People here are not going to like this, but there'd be no way for him to avoid loss of face in situation (a). See, that pesky female brain would be shouting the following messages: One, he's here THIS TIME (but wasn't previous times!) because his protective instinct has been triggered. But, two, he "gave in" once he got here. It is what it is, but we're about as likely to re-program this as men are to re-program your physical desires.
Even more importantly—if he walks in after the fact, it becomes painfully obvious that he is not The Decision Maker in this particular situation.

Even in case (b) he's still not The Decision Maker. And, on top of that less he could lose further "hit points" if he handles the situation in a way that's anything other than perfectly authoritative, dismissive of the other man's very existence, and paternally condescending to me (as though I were a blithely unaware tween girl).

If DH continued NOT to watch, there'd be no less than TWO kinds of "plausible deniability" in play.
First, I could tell myself that he'd drag me back home (and punish me severely... yum!) if he happened to walk in.
Second, I could tell myself that he was staying out of it because of mutual trust.

So there would be lots of investment—and lots of successful denial of reality—involved in making sure he didn't come in on us later.
If we give Sam the benefit of the doubt, then these may be, in large part, her motive in avoiding the awkwardness of bringing OP into the fray this late in the game.

If he'd been in on it from the start, these would be largely non-issues, but, it is what it is.

--

To the OP:

Your Sam is a Type A woman. Also known as "bitch", to many.
She's testing you, relentlessly, because she wants to make sure that she's YOUR bitch.

As another Type A woman, I think she actually loves you, and is not so cold-hearted as some of the doomsayers are saying.
As proof, note that she has given you about a million zillion thousand hundred chances to MAKE A DECISION. If she didn't give a rat's rear about you, she'd have given you either one chance or zero chances.

She's constantly taken your discussions and thrown them back in your court. "So, I should just ____, then?" She's done this so often that she's annoying ME with it by now, dude.
These are tests.
She wants you to MAKE A DECISION.
At this point, pretty much any decision at all.
And stick to it.

Also, she's making these things multiple-choice ("So I can _____, or we can just stop this whole thing"). That's another test.
If you pick one of her options, then she's the decision maker again.
I think she's even trying to help you out here, by giving you two comically exaggerated, all-or-nothing poles as the only options. They're both absurd, and she knows that. They're both wrong answers.
She wants YOU to see that, and to pick Plan C instead, and to dictate to her exactly what that is, and to MEAN it.

By this point, she is also, obviously, trying to protect her emotional bond with "Bill". This does not, however, mean she isn't ALSO avoiding the situation to protect her image of you as a strong decision maker. Or what's left of that image, anyway.

You don't have a lot of hit points left. And, in this game, there are no extra lives.

Hummm.. I had to read this 2 or 3 times to understand it. Interesting points.

Yes, she loves and and continues to yield control, and decision, and veto power to me.

Interestingly, we have also explored letting her just take the lead - and some other readers, such as MrsT, have suggested doing exactly that. Samantha is not interested in calling the shots and making this a female lead relationship. She declines.

I can see your argument about how if I caught her in a flagrant delicti (I had to look that one up) it would cause me to lose face no matter what, however, I don't see having me watch her sanctioned flagrant delicto causes any loss of face. Does it not take a strong man to sanction such an act?

Yes, I'm sure she wants me to make decisions, but the truth is that she wants me to make the decisions that she wants. I make decisions. She sometimes says yes, but often says no. We then discuss and negotiate. Most of our decisions come out of negotiations. She often tests me is option A or B - both extremes. We always choose option C, some sort of negotiated settlement. See next posting for a case-in-point...

[Samanthasman]

UPDATE:
Today Samantha and I again debated allowing me to watch. I want it. She does not. She eventually "opened the door" to allowing me to watch from time to time in exchange for me allowing her to actually go on a date (dinner, etc. prior to just fucking) from time to time. Right now her time with Bill is pretty much horizontal mambo and not a lot more, and she's feeling less connected to him, which makes the relationship less gratifying to her. She's at a point where: "if it's just 100% sex with Bill and no relationship, it's less and less interesting and gratifying to me and I'm going to get to the point where I can take it or leave it". I'm at the point where: "If you are having sex with Bill and I'm not able to participate in a way that is meaningful enough to me, it's less and less interesting and gratifying to me and I'm going to get to the point where I can take it or leave it". SO, the next experiment we may conduct is allowing a real "date" and allowing some real "watching"

Is this a good idea? We'll see. We've always approached life and new opportunities by experimenting with our options.

It could be that having me watch will turn her off and/or make her resent me - either way it does not work and we call it a failed experiment. It could be that having me watch, makes me super happy and excited, and she becomes happy in making her husband happy. I'm betting on the latter, but we'll see.

It could be that having her date, increases the intimacy level with Bill and makes me jealous again, and this does not work and we call it a failed experiment. It could be that having her have dates with Bill, makes her more happy and I feel happy with her happiness, and I feel comfortable enough with our relationship and the rest of the situation that it's all good.

Given we are both about at the point where we can take it or leave it with how things are progressing with Bill under the current arrangement, it seems like it's worth the try to do this experiment.

You've just witnessed, in real time, a behind the scenes look at how one modern day couple navigates the choppy waters of hotwifing!

[SmilingHusband]

more "normal" dating type behavior with Bill is a disaster in the making. She had feelings for him before? what's going to happen when they are doing normal "couple" type things?

she is a master manipulator. just wow.

I think it's great you share your story here, but, man, this continues to have red flags all over it. Big bright ones.

good luck.

[SSQ]

I would never want him around if I was with a partner that I was making love with. )

I think this is where most husbands would call "foul!" SSQ, you are a unique person here, in many ways. that works for you. It's very "poly".

I don't think that works for many guys here, myself included. If SC wanted that, we would part ways for sure, and quickly.....

Just my 2 cents.

It is, and I am Either way, I'd much rather H participated with me and another partner than just watched. That way I know it's all good and that we're okay.

He's actually brought up a few times that he's ready to have a threesome with me and a partner of my choosing. I'm looking forward to that.

[Wifesharing]

I know my wife much prefers a date before the romp. Says just meeting for sex is just blah and makes her feel like a piece of meat. Even when I am there we all meet out at a bar and dance and stuff, it is a rare time when it is straight to bed for her. So Sam's request sounds normal to me, and I think your desire to be involved including watching is normal too, so if she can uphold her side this might be a good give and take.

[Wifesharing]

I would never want him around if I was with a partner that I was making love with. )

I think this is where most husbands would call "foul!" SSQ, you are a unique person here, in many ways. that works for you. It's very "poly".

I don't think that works for many guys here, myself included. If SC wanted that, we would part ways for sure, and quickly.....

Just my 2 cents.

It is, and I am Either way, I'd much rather H participated with me and another partner than just watched. That way I know it's all good and that we're okay.

He's actually brought up a few times that he's ready to have a threesome with me and a partner of my choosing. I'm looking forward to that.

My wife also is much more comfortable if I am involved ina threesome then if I was to just sit back and watch.

[Samanthasman]

more "normal" dating type behavior with Bill is a disaster in the making. She had feelings for him before? what's going to happen when they are doing normal "couple" type things?

she is a master manipulator. just wow.

I think it's great you share your story here, but, man, this continues to have red flags all over it. Big bright ones.

good luck.

What is evolving here is where we are in the "NRE Cycle"...

She has had a couple of intense emotional connection cycles with Bill, for some time now. They spend time together, the closeness grows, they separate, the closeness diminishes. She has never felt like she needs to be with him at all cost. She wants him, sure, but not at the expense of her marriage.

As the NRE fades, just a bit, it's becoming more clear to her and to me that although Bill is a great guy, and rocks her world in many ways, he's not going to be the love of her life, as I am. This is why my jealousy has subsided somewhat and this is why she is at a point where she really could walk away from him, if she's not able to maintain some additional emotional intimacy with him.

A decade ago, before we were even married, we went though a similar cycle with her dating an ex-BF she had never really resolved her feelings for. She had dated him before me, and wanted to explore things with him again. I said no at first but later opened the door for her to date him from time to time. For a period of time, the NRE was sky high, but over time it became clear although he was awesome in certain ways, he was not going to compete with me as a potential husband. As this became more clear, I felt more comfortable with them dating each other, however this was infrequent and long before we even knew what HWing was...


When a woman has a close intimate emotional connection with a lover, I'm just saying, the sex goes white-hot. The intensity of their passionate love-making is off the charts hot. Yes, its a little scary to see your wife that intimate with another man. Deep kissing, and endless gut-level orgasms that can only come from a deep emotional connection with a lover that has learned, from much experience, exactly how to push every button and hit every spot, and has a focused determination to bring his lover to her highest possible level of satisfaction. You can't get there any other way.

It can be very fulfilling to see your wife reach that point, but also scary in getting there - and everyone here has watched me cope with and throttle the relationship to this point in my attempts to manage the risks.

[SmilingHusband]

"close intimate emotional connection" should be within the marriage. to let that play out with another, is truly playing with fire.

best of luck.

[Samanthasman]

"close intimate emotional connection" should be within the marriage. to let that play out with another, is truly playing with fire.

best of luck.

Humm... I've been reading on here for a while and it has become apparent that a significant percentage - I believe the majority, although I don't know exactly what percentage - of women on here REQUIRE an "intimate emotional connection" before they have sex.

Obviously, many women can and do enjoy sex without that. I know your wife has sex without that.

As a man, I sort of would prefer if my wife really could enjoy NSA sex every time, but he can't, and I know that (many/most) husbands are in the same situation.

Certainly, one thing we have all learned here is that there is certainly no "one size fits all" model for doing this.

Is this "playing with fire?" Yes, in some ways it is. I'd also say however that we are ALL playing with fire. I created another thread (what model are you?) that explored this in some depth. In that thread we discussed how women avoid "love" and deal with having an intimate emotional connection while being married.

Is the NSA model "safer?" I would certainly think so, but I'm frankly not certain. Regardless, it's a moot point because if a couple really wants to explore HWing and the wife requires an intimate emotional connection in order to have sex, there is no choice but to deal with this and manage this (or abandon the idea entirely).

[casualfun850]

My head is spinning on this. Let her go out and come home n tell you what she did while you have sex with. Something simple.

[mundyman]

SSQ
Trudy = truly
which is what you truly are, hot and amazing.

[bubbajack]

I think - or maybe "feel" is a better word (INFP here, for whatever that's worth ) that somewhere in all this to-ing and fro-ing there is a deal to be made. The negotiations have gone on for long enough and (it seems) with lots of airing of alternative outcomes being jointly and unflinchingly considered, that I believe the parties are sincerely interested in reaching a mutually satisfying accommodation. This is incomparably important.

But there does still seem to be some posturing going on - perhaps as a function of the parties' personal characters - which suggests that they are not helping each other as much as they might. My guess is that the negotiations are stuck on the one big issue of SM being present or not present in person when S is fucking Bill because the issue is framed as flatly incompatible alternatives.

But why, apart from the verbal/conceptual formulation, are the alternatives incompatible instead of merely contrasting, and therefore subject to potential mitigation by degrees? Why can't a program of experiments be carried out with different details exhibiting different degrees of SM's proximity/remoteness to the crucible of passion between S and Bill?

Of course this possibility has occurred to the parties and to many of the commenters - but the standoff remains.

It might be that the parties are each haunted by a fear of not being "personally in charge"of the hotwifing enterprise, which can be a very tough nut for many people to crack. The thought of not being in control implies for some personalities that someone else is - and that seems unbearable - especially to those who see themselves as "results-oriented".

But marriage and the conduct of a marital sex life is fundamentally a process involving a sequence of cumulative adjustments - big and small. Who after ten (or twenty or thirty) years still thinks their wedding-day ideas about life together were true, correct and complete? Who after their first (or second or nth) hotwifing experience would say it was "exactly as I expected - no biggie"?

My point is that the devotion to being "in charge" can become a shibboleth which falsifies the actual record of the relationship and impoverishes the potentialities for development of a deeper, richer life together - if you let it.

I am not you and I am in a relationship where 'Who's in charge?" has retreated in importance to almost nothing as an (initially hard-won) mutuality of shared control across the vast majority of important areas of our life together has taken over around here. I once heard the injunction to "ride the horse in the direction it's going" and it has worked out really, really well ...

Best, as always.

[SmilingHusband]

(or abandon the idea entirely).

this is what the healthy mind chooses. a man's life & marriage are more important that some sex fantasy.

[Samanthasman]

I think - or maybe "feel" is a better word (INFP here, for whatever that's worth ) that somewhere in all this to-ing and fro-ing there is a deal to be made. The negotiations have gone on for long enough and (it seems) with lots of airing of alternative outcomes being jointly and unflinchingly considered, that I believe the parties are sincerely interested in reaching a mutually satisfying accommodation. This is incomparably important.

But there does still seem to be some posturing going on - perhaps as a function of the parties' personal characters - which suggests that they are not helping each other as much as they might. My guess is that the negotiations are stuck on the one big issue of SM being present or not present in person when S is fucking Bill because the issue is framed as flatly incompatible alternatives.

But why, apart from the verbal/conceptual formulation, are the alternatives incompatible instead of merely contrasting, and therefore subject to potential mitigation by degrees? Why can't a program of experiments be carried out with different details exhibiting different degrees of SM's proximity/remoteness to the crucible of passion between S and Bill?

Of course this possibility has occurred to the parties and to many of the commenters - but the standoff remains.

It might be that the parties are each haunted by a fear of not being "personally in charge"of the hotwifing enterprise, which can be a very tough nut for many people to crack. The thought of not being in control implies for some personalities that someone else is - and that seems unbearable - especially to those who see themselves as "results-oriented".

But marriage and the conduct of a marital sex life is fundamentally a process involving a sequence of cumulative adjustments - big and small. Who after ten (or twenty or thirty) years still thinks their wedding-day ideas about life together were true, correct and complete? Who after their first (or second or nth) hotwifing experience would say it was "exactly as I expected - no biggie"?

My point is that the devotion to being "in charge" can become a shibboleth which falsifies the actual record of the relationship and impoverishes the potentialities for development of a deeper, richer life together - if you let it.

I am not you and I am in a relationship where 'Who's in charge?" has retreated in importance to almost nothing as an (initially hard-won) mutuality of shared control across the vast majority of important areas of our life together has taken over around here. I once heard the injunction to "ride the horse in the direction it's going" and it has worked out really, really well ...

Best, as always.

Shibboleth !!??

Bubba - you are so interesting to listen to that you are one person on here that I would actually like to meet in "real life"

Yes, the negotiations continue. My style is to push for a resolution. Samantha's style is to let things linger, often past deadlines, and then say "how about xyz!?". Case in point, she was going to have a date with Bill tonite but we never concluded what our agreement is. So, the soft date passes without happening or even talking about it.

Tomorrow is Monday which we always designated as "Fuck Samantha Day". She ALWAYS has a date on Monday. I already know what is going to happen. She won't bring up anything until tomorrow and then She'll say "so, I'm going to see Bill tonite, ok?" And I'm going to say "no, not until we reach some agreement!" And we'll start negotiating again.... It's painfully silly to go thru this, but that's where we are...

Where will this discussion go!? Not sure. Probably to a compromise. Her last proposal was that I let her sleep with Bill for 8 sessions (2 hours each) including 1 sleepover and 2 dinners out, over 10 days in exchange for me "watching" from the window outside of the guest house 2 times. I said there would have to be at least one "in room" and she flat out said "no".

I'm not sure I'm excited enough to accept anything short of at least one "in room" at this stage, so the impasse continues.

Tomorrow we will ALL be super horny so we'll see what happens.

[mundyman]

It sounds I like you two should have a federal mediator living in your guest house given the intense nature of your negotiations. Stand your ground as I think she asks for a bit much for offering so little.
BTW does she usually go out with her FBs 8 out of 10 days?
How does she see her kids or remain an active, relevant member of the family?

[Samanthasman]

It sounds I like you two should have a federal mediator living in your guest house given the intense nature of your negotiations. Stand your ground as I think she asks for a bit much for offering so little.
BTW does she usually go out with her FBs 8 out of 10 days?
How does she see her kids or remain an active, relevant member of the family?

No 8 of 10 days would be a special "sex feast". Normally she goes 1-2x/week with Bill and once with Sid or other.

[mundyman]

I wish you luck as I continue to pull for you and your wife on this journey. I appreciate your honesty in sharing your story often in an immediate fashion.
Best of luck you lucky bastard. and I mean that in the best way possible.

[DaBolts]

Do you want her to see him that many times in such a short period of time?

[Samanthasman]

Seems like I made a minor miscommunication...

I asked Samantha how many times she would like to go back and forth between Bill and I in the next 10 days. I posed the question in the context of a sexual fantasy that we might live out. In other words, "if you could have as much sex as you wanted with him and me, what might that look like?"

Frankly, I doubt any of us would actually have enough time to pull off that much sex, but it's a pretty hot fantasy. The reality is that we are trying to determine how many times I might be invited to watch and in what ways over X rounds of sex....

Is it reasonable that I watch or participate every time? Every 5th time? Obviously every relationship is different... We are trying to determine what is reasonable for us...

[Iamtheman]

Balance, balance, balance.

Maybe every other time. Maybe every time, but for only one of the two hours. You'll hear 10 opinions from 10 people. There are really only two that matter. Well, three actually. In the end, it's balance that will bridge the gap between what you each want.