| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> What about your friends? Can you have friends that supply you with forms
> of entertainment that your mate can/does not?
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.
> Would checking out the
> salesclerks at the lingere store while you're in the mall be precluded when
> fully committed as you describe?
Appreciating someone's physical attractiveness doesn't require nearly the same
amount of resources that trying to maintain a healthy, ongoing relationship
with them does, now does it?
> Do you feel that most people in monogamous
> relationships attain this committment that you're describing?
I feel that most people in monogamous, *non-dysfunctional* relationships
probably do.
> Then one of them has another member of their stable of partners go.
What if their stable is empty at the present time? What if you are the only
one of their lovers they feel fulfills this particular relationship need (ie,
the others are fun to be with, but not nearly as sensitive or comforting)?
What then?
> And as
> Scott mentioned, life is full of such choices.
And Scott is full of meaningless one-liners. That's what makes arguing with
him a complete waste of time and energy.
The only way you're presented with this choice is by getting into this
situation.
> > Why bother to make an argument if you already see the flaws?
>
> Because I can point out that they aren't really flaw in the argument.
But you didn't. Saying something isn't a flaw doesn't make it so any more than
saying that a cat is a dog makes it so.
> > Why do you assume that all polyamorous relationships involve people that want
> > to spend time with all of their lover's other partners?
>
> Good point. Especially given the nature of the relationships that the
> polyamorists that you've dealt with.
How do you know anything about the polyamorists I've dealt with? Are you
following me around?
> The only people I have known that were
> polyamorous, and not obviously flakes, were building communal group marriage
> arrangements.
Ah, but they're not all like that. Nor does that preclude any of the problems
or observations I've made thus far.
> Your assessment of people merely being out for a multi-partner
> joy ride seems more applicable to people like you seem to be assuming that
> polyamorists are.
How do you know what I assume polyamorists are? While I certainly group people
in search of a multi-partner joyride under the same heading as polyamorists, I
don't think that's what they're all after.
But, as I said above, it doesn't help to alleviate any of the things I've said
so far. If anything, it makes them worse.
> Maybe our differenec in opinion stems from our difference
> in
> experience.
Once again, you speak out of your posterior- you haven't a clue what my
experience is, nor do I have any what yours is.
You assume too much.
> As well as you can. It seems that you keep referring to what your partner(s)
> need from you, but it has been my experience that partners are generally out
> looking for what they can do for one another. The angle is giving and not
> receiving.
And what I'm asking is, who do you choose to give to, when more than one
partner at a time needs it? Obviously, if only one partner at a time has a
need, you're fine- and clearly, if no partners have a need at a given time,
you're free to give to whomever you want.
But part of committing to another person is committing to help them when they
have a need- and if you've committed to more than one person, it's possible
that you will find yourself in a position where you must choose to fill one
person's needs and not another's.
The kind of giving you're talking about is selfish giving- giving for the sake
of making yourself feel good. There are times, in a fully committed
relationship, when you have to give because your partner needs you to. That's
not always convenient. And I would really like to know how you would solve it
if both these people you claim to have a deep and committed love for need you.
> So if there is a group of lovers and one needs consolation and one
> needs celibration, then the group can split up as needed.
And once again I ask, what if both lovers think you are the only one in their
"stable" (an interesting term to use- generally reserved for beasts of burden
and prostitutes, I'd point out) that can fill the need they have at that time?
How do you commit to being there for both?
Despite your squirming, the answer is pretty clear- you can't.
> > Pithy... meaningless... say, you don't work in advertising or PR, do you?
>
> Now, you've gone too far!
It was meant as levity. I can't tell if you're actually offended or not, but
if so, I was kidding.
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
