| |
Lorbaat wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> > You didn't answer my question about the "copping out" comment, either.
>
> This:
>
> "Your use of the term "copping out" seems pejorative to
> me: I personally have no interest in looking for one person to fill all • my
> needs, and I don't see that that's anyone else's business. Nor do I want • to
> try to fill all my partner's needs, nor does he want me to."
>
> is a question?
Too much snippage. The entire paragraph you're quoting from contained
questions just before your quote:
> Why do you think it's important to look for one person who does fill all
> ones needs, Eric? Do you think it's likely that one would find such a
> person? ALL needs? Your use of the term "copping out" seems pejorative to
> me: I personally have no interest in looking for one person to fill all my
I'm still interested in your answers.
> > Have you tried it, Eric? Presumably no.
>
> Really? And how do you reach that presumption? Simply based on the fact • that
> I don't view it as the enlightened epiphany that some polyamorists do, or • that
> I reject the idea that it's a sexual orientation? That's a big jump of • logic,
> there.
A presumption implies doubt: I used that word because I *don't* know that
you haven't tried it. In fact, your vehemence on the subject (eg "This is
pretty typical of the crap that polyamorists spew in an attempt to make
themselves seem enlightened." *might* (implying doubt) mean you have tried
it and it went very badly wrong. Only you know. But if you haven't tried it,
how can you presume to speak for what the feelings in such a relationship
are?
> > Especially, how can you know whether it's possible for someone else?
>
> Committing yourself to one person requires a level of trust and, well,
> committment that just isn't present in an open relationship. Period.
An "open relationship" is not the same thing as a polyamorous relationship.
Because a relationship involves more than 2 people, does not mean it's
automatically open to more. It may be, but it may not.
Re level of trust and commitment, I just don't see that you can generalise
like this. Any given monogamous relationship may or may not involve more or
less trust and commitment than any poly relationship. Monogamy does not
necessarily involve high levels of trust and commitment.
> > It happens to monogamous people too, though:
> > how do you choose between your spouse and your child in those • circumstances?
>
> Straw man. Choosing between a romantic love and a familial love is NOT the
> same as choosing between two romantic loves.
I don't agree that it's a straw man. The situations seem to me directly
analagous, but if you don't agree it's not worth pursuing.
> > On the other hand, polyamory increases the resources for help (and
> > celebration) when one of the group needs it. My partner has AIDS and • believe
> > me, I am very glad I'm not the only person he has to turn to when he needs
> > help.
>
> That's funny, when I need extra help like this I have friends I can turn • to- it
> doesn't require any sort of romantic involvement.
You were talking about the kind of help/celebration that required the
presence of a romantic love, in your original argument.
In the more general case of needing help, of course friends rally round. In
my experience though, when someone has a long term chronic illness like AIDS
or CFIDS or others, where long term runs into years and years, friends
gradually fall by the wayside. They move away, die, get married, get sick
themselves, get fed up with being a caretaker, and the sick person isn't
well enough to get out and keep making more friends. In this case, the more
people in the committed relationship, the better. Blood family may not be a
substitute, either.
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Ah. I assumed they were somewhat rhetorical at best- at worst, they have nothing to do with the question at hand. But here are my answers: (...) Who said I thought it was important? I never said that I thought it was important or necessary to (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) As I said to someone else, I'm not going to get bogged down in a semantic argument. (...) This: "Your use of the term "copping out" seems pejorative to me: I personally have no interest in looking for one person to fill all my needs, and I (...) (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
|
|
|
|
