 | | Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) never (...) Why do you think it's important to look for one person who does fill all ones needs, Eric? Do you think it's likely that one would find such a person? ALL needs? Your use of the term "copping out" seems (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) That's great for both of you. I note with interest that you snipped away the part where I said I didn't see anything wrong with dating multiple people, as long as *all* people involved in *all* the relationships are aware of what's going on. I (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) I suppose it really depends on how you let the other person view the relationship. (...) I'd choose the one who needed me most. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's an easy answer, but I'm not so sure it would be a comfort to the person who needed you greatly but, in your opinion, not as much as the other person. Or, worse yet, felt they needed you more, but you disagreed. eric (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Life is full of such decisions. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | | Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) to (...) the (...) as (...) what's (...) I snipped it away because in spite of what it said, your use of the term "copping out" seemed to me to show that you *did* see something wrong with it. You didn't answer my (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) As I said to someone else, I'm not going to get bogged down in a semantic argument. (...) This: "Your use of the term "copping out" seems pejorative to me: I personally have no interest in looking for one person to fill all my needs, and I (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Bull. Committing to multiple people requires MORE trust between all involved, and can involve more commitment, as you are going against "the norm" in your daily life. (...) And why do you seem to think polyamory would only involve romantic (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Really? How? I see it as hedging your bets, leaving yourself an out. (...) Don't confuse commitment to what you're doing to commitment to a person. Once again, if you are dividing yourself between X and Y (not to mention possibly seeking Z) (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I think the divorce statistics in the US prove that monogamists leave themselves an out quite often. (...) It can also involve FAMILIAL love, which you seem to push as the sticking point for the cases of "people in need". (...) That's (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | | | Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) my (...) to (...) Too much snippage. The entire paragraph you're quoting from contained questions just before your quote: (...) I'm still interested in your answers. (...) that (...) that (...) logic, (...) A (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ah. I assumed they were somewhat rhetorical at best- at worst, they have nothing to do with the question at hand. But here are my answers: (...) Who said I thought it was important? I never said that I thought it was important or necessary to (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) As deep as any relationship can be. That's like asking how much can you love your mother if you're having to think about loving your father. Love is not finite. You don't have 100 points of love to spread around and so the more people you have (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) No, not really. When you're committed to one other person, no part of your brain is seeking another person, or giving attention to another person you're already seeing. (...) No, they're thought experiments. Yours apparently failed. (...) Not (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | Eric, from this an another note of yours, it is clear that I approached this conversation with the wrong tone. I will seek to be more neutral herein. (...) What about your friends? Can you have friends that supply you with forms of entertainment (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes, but it doesn't mean I have romantic feelings for them. I am capable of caring for someone without wanting to <thinks of a Lugnet-acceptable term> get it on with them. (...) Appreciating someone's physical attractiveness doesn't require (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Then they are no worse off than if they were in a monogamous relationship? Seems to me you proved polyamory is the better choice here - no more negatives than monogamous, yet the possibility for more positives. (...) You can't fit ANY one (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Have you really thought that through? Person A has to choose between being with Person B and Person C. He chooses to be with B. C now has no one to be with, despite being in a "committed" relationship. I don't see how a person in a (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yep, that pretty much covers monogamy. Polyamory/polygamy, though, has Person D (or E/F/G/etc) also. (...) You haven't thought about what I've been saying, obviously. (...) Definitely. You seem to think that having MORE people that care about (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) You missed my point, and it's my fault. Person A is in a relationship with both persons B and C. B and C both want A to do something, and A cannot do both (what those things are doesn't matter). A is forced to choose, merely by dint of being (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yet you continue to ignore the fact that polyamory or polygamy CAN result in familial love (multiple children from mixed "couples"), so it does have bearing. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) (not interested in the debate, just forgot to add .debate back into my skip filter, and this caught my eye) If this is your argument against polyamory, then it's also your arguement against any kind of familial relationship. Person A = parent (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) In the consulting racket, that's what we call a "drive by"... "I'm not interested in your discussion but I did have to put this one point in, and now I'm ignoring you again so don't bother trying to refute it as I won't see it" (overstated for (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) That is pretty much what you have said to me a few times. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Yup, you're right. My bad. Doesn't make my point any less valid, though. I'll stick around like a good little boy, to see if anyone wants to refute it, or debate it. James (BTW, that looked a lot like a snipe, Lar. Albiet a friendly one. :) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes, I think I agree with you on this. Life is a series of choices. The question that has bearing may be whether polyamory tends to give you richer choices or tends to make you make harder compromises. That would be a metric I'd judge it by, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think the general truth is probably that it does both. You have open a richer body of choices and experiences, but you do also lose some things. That may include tougher compromises. Many were discussed, but they were hypothetical. The (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) want (...) all (...) want to (...) you (...) that? This is a real issue, and different groups of people resolve it differently. Poly groups are not all the same, there are a lot of different structures developed by (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes, I know. Hinge, triangle, primary/secondary, etc (those are the only ones everyone seemed able to agree on). (...) Right. But my point stands- you're forced to make a choice that you would not be forced to make if you were committed to (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Polyamory —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Out of curiosity, Kevin, do you think it's impossible to find such a person? Or, conversely, do you think it's possible to find any combination of people to meet ALL of one's needs? Is it even necessary that ALL needs be met? I'm not blasting (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) I don't like to say impossible... but certainly improbable. A combination of people is more likely. But in fact I think you're right that ALL needs should not be expected to be met - apart from anything else, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) I think that the reason we surround ourselves with social relationships of various kinds is to satisfy needs. (Needs in the soft sense, really more appropriately called desires.) I agree with Kevin that it is highly unlikely that anyone ever (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) Not to put too fine a point on it, Chris, but given the above, isn't your accusing me of having an attitude, and asking who the hell I think I am to make judgements, and calling my use of the term "copping out" a bad thing just a little, tiny, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) make (...) Um...No. I don't even see the link. Are you reacting to the word foolish? How would you feel if I replaced the word foolish with 'probably a bad idea' or 'needless'? Chris (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Polyamory —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) Really? You don't see the link between asking what place of mine it is to judge another person's relationship choices, and then saying that seeking a monogamous relationship is "foolish" (or below, "needless", or "probably a bad" idea? (...) (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
