| |
Lorbaat wrote:
> 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.
Yep, that pretty much covers monogamy. Polyamory/polygamy, though, has Person D
(or E/F/G/etc) also.
> 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.
You haven't thought about what I've been saying, obviously.
> > 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.
Definitely. You seem to think that having MORE people that care about you is a
negative. I certainly don't.
> > > 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.
OK, then it's obvious that you haven't reasoned this through enough.
In EVERY case where you said "pick B or C", my answers has been "pick B or C"
familialy. In a monogamous relationship, you must pick B or C with NO backup.
Polyamory/polygamy presents the EXACT same choice, EXCEPT that you CAN have a
"backup".
Personally, I'd rather have a "family" member (member of the group) as a backup
rather than friends. Polyamory/gamy gives you that, monogamy does not. Poly
(think of the definition of poly, after all) presents more backup/choices than
mono.
You see it as a negative. That's too bad, as I see it (quite rightly IMO) as a
positive.
> > How do you commit to 2 children from different marriages at the same time?
I see you can't seem to answer this one, except for "that would suck". Great
answer. Monogamy gives you that as the solution, poly[amory/gamy] gives you more.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) You missed my point, and it's my fault. Person A is in a relationship with both persons B and C. B and C both want A to do something, and A cannot do both (what those things are doesn't matter). A is forced to choose, merely by dint of being (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
