| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?
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, wee bit hypocritical?
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) make (...) Um...No. I don't even see the link. Are you reacting to the word foolish? How would you feel if I replaced the word foolish with 'probably a bad idea' or 'needless'? Chris (26 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
