| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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 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 finds one person who satisfies all those needs. And it is
foolish to force yourself into this arbitrary moral framework that insists that
monogamy is the only right way of doing it. Why not open yourself up to
multiple lovers?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Not to put too fine a point on it, Chris, but given the above, isn't your accusing me of having an attitude, and asking who the hell I think I am to make judgements, and calling my use of the term "copping out" a bad thing just a little, tiny, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
