| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> 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?
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 to spread it among, the less each one gets. Thus the chance of
real love happening is low.
Your stance is valid for many people, but only by happenstance, and nor for all
of them. If you're seeing 100 (to pick a big number) people, then obviously
you can't give them all much time. But what about five, and what if you all
live together? I see no problem there.
And how would you possibly know how deep the relationship between any given set
of people (assuming that you aren't a participant) is anyway?
> 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?
Come on, these are silly questions. You would be with both of them when they
are sick. You would celibrate with both of them when that was appropriate.
And if for some reason, their illness prevented that, then you'd make a
decision just like you would if your child and wife were in an accident and you
could only be with one of them. It happens, and you make a tough choice, but
you move on.
> 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.
False. There is always that chance. Let's imagine that your wife is involved
in an accident, and you're on your way to the hospital to see her off since
she's going to die in the next half hour, but a traffic jam gets in your way
and you miss it. There was quite plainly a chance that you wouldn't be there
when she needed you because of someone else. So I guess you're saying that you
didn't really open up and share your life with her. Ridiculous!
Now, you might say that that's not the same as opting out when you have a "more
important" lover to attend to, and you're right. But in that case, all the
other lovers should come together to visit the hurt or celebritory member of
their clique.
> And, once again, that's fine with me- but it's not
> the same as committing to a single person.
That's true. Maybe it's better.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
