| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> 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.
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:
> > Why do you think it's important to look for one person who does fill all
> > ones needs, Eric?
Who said I thought it was important? I never said that I thought it was
important or necessary to seek out any kind of romantic relationship.
My only assertion here continues to be that you cannot commit as fully to
several people as you can to one.
> > Do you think it's likely that one would find such a
> > person? ALL needs?
All the needs I personally feel I would like a romantic involvement to fill,
yes. Note that does NOT equate to "all the needs I have". I don't require a
lover to want to play BrikWars with me, for example. I have friends for that.
But if I had no one to play those types of games with, I would feel a certain
amount of loss in my quality of life. I like strategy games.
> A presumption implies doubt: I used that word because I *don't* know that
> you haven't tried it.
Then why not leave it as a simple question, instead of trying to fill in an
answer?
> 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.
Or it might indicate that I'm having a bad day, and I saw something that has
irritated me in the past. Or it might indicate I know someone other than me
who was in a polyamorous relationship that went badly wrong. Or it might
indicate that I'm a pompous, opinionated windbag busybody.
> But if you haven't tried it,
> how can you presume to speak for what the feelings in such a relationship
> are?
If you've never fallen out of an airplane, how can you presume to say that
you'd be scared witless? If you've never had one of your children die, how can
you presume to know you'd be sad? If you've never been handed a check for ten
million dollars, how can you presume to know you'd be happy?
> 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.
You are correct, of course, and I was using "open relationship" as shorthand
for a relationship in which you are not *only* committed to one person.
> 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.
You are correct, of course, and I have worked hard to make it clear that I do
not by default think that every monogamous relationship is somehow "better"
than any polygamous relationship. If I failed in that case, I apologise.
However, I do still feel that a monogamous relationship scenario (once again,
NOT *every* monogamous relationship) has the capability for higher levels of
commitment and depends on more trust in the other person than even the most
commited and trusting polygamous relationship.
You cannot be committed to two things in equal amounts that are the same as the
amount you can commit to one thing. There is always the possibility that you
will reach a point at which you will be forced to make a choice.
> > 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.
Do you really beleive that the love you feel for a child is directly equivalent
to the love you feel for a spouse? I don't have a child, but merely by
introducing the element of raising them and completely providing for them it
would change the nature of the feelings, wouldn't it?
> > 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.
Good point. I switched gears somewhere, and even I'm not sure how it happened.
I can honestly say, though, that if I were in a committed relationship with
someone who was suffering from a major illness, I would want to be there for
them in every way they needed a lover to be there. Naturally, of course, as
you say friends rally around, and that takes some pressure off other areas.
> 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.
The only people that come to visit your partner are either in your extended
relationship, or are friends that were around when the illness set in? Because
your partner can't go out, it's impossible for his social circle to be
replenished? I've known people confined to their home because of illness, and
that's not been the case. Then again, they have all had single partners, and
that partner's social life has necessarily also somewhat retracted to a
quieter, more home-centric lifestyle. Take that however you will.
> Blood family may not be a
> substitute, either.
Of course not.
eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) my (...) to (...) Too much snippage. The entire paragraph you're quoting from contained questions just before your quote: (...) I'm still interested in your answers. (...) that (...) that (...) logic, (...) A (...) (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
|
|
|
|
