| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> 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?
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 your position or Eric's, but I'm unsure of the idea that
we must meet ALL needs to have a complete relationship or relationships.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| 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)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
