| |
Lorbaat wrote:
> > 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?
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.
> > 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.
You can't fit ANY one group into a box like that. Especially monogamists.
> > 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?
From your slanted statements?
> 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.
But your bias hints at your experience, as you wouldn't be saying the things you
are if you had seen the "better" polyamorists.
> You assume too much.
We take your slanted statements and make judgement calls on them, just as everyone
does all the time.
> > 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.
Same goes for family. We've followed you on a case by case basis, and can continue
to do so.
> 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.
And there's something wrong with doing so if it makes you feel good too?
> 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?
How do you commit to 2 children from different marriages at the same time?
> Despite your squirming, the answer is pretty clear- you can't.
The answer is even more clear that you can't either, and Healthy Polyamory gives
each person a better chance of getting the support they need over monogamy.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
