 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
