| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> 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?
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 relationship with one other person only is going
to get into that situation.
Do NOT resort to familial obligations, or traffic jams, or other things. Look
at the thought experiment as it stands. Really think about it.
> Seems to me you proved polyamory is the better choice here - no more negatives
> than
> monogamous, yet the possibility for more positives.
Then we disagree on the results.
> > How do you know what I assume polyamorists are?
>
> From your slanted statements?
Not slanted. Reasoned. I disagree with you on it, that makes my arguments
automatically wrong and biased? Because I don't like it, I'm automatically
prejudiced?
The very nature of the question requires you to fill out a binary choice: "Do
you think it's possible to truly commit to a romantic relationship with more
than one person at a time: Yes or no?"
You have no idea what experiences have lead me to the answer no. For all you
know, I have been in several polyamourous relationships. For all you know, I
have tried like hell to make them work, and reached this conclusion.
Then again, for all you know I have never been in any kind of committed
relationship at all.
But just because I have an opinion on something doesn't mean you have any
ability whatsoever to gauge how I reached the opinion I have.
> Same goes for family. We've followed you on a case by case basis, and can
> continue
> to do so.
Once again, I'm forced to point out that saying something is so does not make
it so. I would refute the idea that your family arguments have any bearing at
all on being committed to a single person romantically versus being committed
to multiple people romantically.
> > 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?
Did I say there was something wrong with doing it because it makes you feel
good?
Is it possible for you to keep yourself confined to what I actually say,
instead of trying to read between the lines?
> How do you commit to 2 children from different marriages at the same time?
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
