| |
Lorbaat wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
>
> > I personally have no interest in looking for one person to fill all my
> > needs, and I don't see that that's anyone else's business. Nor do I want • to
> > try to fill all my partner's needs, nor does he want me to.
>
> 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 don't see anything wrong with it at all.
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 question about the "copping out" comment, either.
> But I don't see a difference between that and simply dating around, not • taking
> any relationship to a deeper level. I know that polyamorists like to think
> they are having a deeper relationship with all the people they're currently
> seeing, but I have to reject that idea- how deep can your relationship with • X
> be if you are thinking about seeing Y later, or looking for a possible Z?
Have you tried it, Eric? Presumably no. Then how can you know whether or not
it's possible to have a deep relationship with more than one person?
Especially, how can you know whether it's possible for someone else?
> And, to get to the point where it *always* breaks down- if catastrophe • befell
> both X and Y at the same time, how would you choose with whom to be? If • both X
> and Y reached some sort of pinnacle in their lives at the same time, with • whom
> would you choose to celebrate? You aren't really opening up and sharing • your
> life with someone if there's the chance when they need you, you won't be • there
> because of someone else.
Yes, this is a potential problem, although it takes a pretty good
coincidence for it to happen. It happens to monogamous people too, though:
how do you choose between your spouse and your child in those circumstances?
On the other hand, polyamory increases the resources for help (and
celebration) when one of the group needs it. My partner has AIDS and believe
me, I am very glad I'm not the only person he has to turn to when he needs
help.
> And, once again, that's fine with me- but it's not
> the same as committing to a single person.
No, it's not. That's part of the point :-)
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
