| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> As deep as any relationship can be.
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.
> Come on, these are silly questions.
No, they're thought experiments. Yours apparently failed.
> You would be with both of them when they
> are sick.
Not possible. What then? What if one parters father dies and the funeral's in
Cleveland, and one partners father dies and the funeral is in Portland? Both
very much want you there, both feel that your presence is needed. You cannot
be in two places at once.
> 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.
Why bother to make an argument if you already see the flaws?
> But in that case, all the
> other lovers should come together to visit the hurt or celebritory member of
> their clique.
Why do you assume that all polyamorous relationships involve people that want
to spend time with all of their lover's other partners? Even if they do all
know each other, what if you have one lover who wants you to be with them
because they feel down, and one that wants you to be there because they want to
celebrate? What if one really needs to be comforted, and the other wants you
to be there to make their happy occasion complete? How do you resolve that?
> > 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.
Pithy... meaningless... say, you don't work in advertising or PR, do you?
eric
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| 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
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
