|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 28, 2014 03:49 AM |
|
|
Fred:Quote:
isn't simply having a friend being in a relationship?
Yes, it is, but it's not a romantic relationship, and often the word "relationship" is used to refer to romantic relationships, even though there are relationships of other kinds.Quote:
how is sex and "acting on mutual romantic interest" seperate from one another?
Sexual attraction and romantic interest are separate feelings, though they often go together. The feeling of sexual attraction can be described simply - "That person looks attractive to me and I want to have sex with them". Romantic interest is more difficult to describe, but it involves the sort of feelings that one would have that would cause someone to want to be in a relationship with someone (rather than in a "friends with benefits" arrangement with them), to try to describe them (not completely) - "This person's happiness is very important to me, I want to take care of them, I want to be with them", etc. This feeling is not mutually felt in a typical friends with benefits situation. Of course, people often feel romantic interest in and sexual attraction to the same person at the same time, but they're still distinct feelings.Quote:
when you say, "spend our lives together", do you mean, "i spend my life with her, and she spends her life with me + anyone else she is romantically interested in"? because that is what will happen, by my understanding of how you are relating this relationship to us. and you are really ok with her screwing anyone else for as long as you two are together? how about after you have kids with her? who will be the acting father? who will BE the father? not to mention the drastically increased chances of S.T.D.'s, and pregnancy?
As far as I'm concerned, her having other partners is no different from her having close friends with whom she spends a good amount of time and the same is true for her and my future other partners (unless we happen to have a partner in common, which may be possible in the future because she's bisexual). Her spending some time with other partners doesn't take anything away from me, so we would still consider it "spending our lives together" - and besides, she'll live with me, and eventually she'll marry me and raise children with me (as our desired lifestyles are highly compatible). I'm okay with her having sex with whomever she wants (and she's okay with me having sex with whomever I want) as long as we take the necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy and STDs, and indeed since she already has three boyfriends (including me) I can honestly say that I don't mind it at all, and since she enjoys it, I'm happy for her.  It's fine if this continues after we have children, as long as the children themselves are sufficiently taken care of. I don't know whether I'll be the biological father of her children - I'll get genetically tested, and if my genes are bad, then we could get a sperm donation from someone with better genes. Regardless, I'll be the children's father, as I'll raise them with her. As for pregnancy and STDs, she and her partners will take precautions to avoid both, but should they fail, she'd get an abortion (if she gets pregnant) or get treated (in the highly unlikely scenario in which she'd get an STD). Because we're not going to have sex with a whole bunch of random people, we plan to have a few regular romantic partners.
Meroe:Quote:
Of course you can be emotionally and superficially romantically involved with several people in a 'friends with benefits' scenario. Its all about 'you', and as an emotional vampire you will leech off those people who will be very supportive and sympathetic, especially as they know their time won't be wasted as they are going to have sex with you anyway.
"Leech off" those people? People in polyamorous relationships can be just as committed as people in monogamous relationships. I emotionally support my girlfriend (and will also support my future girlfriends), and she emotionally supports me and her other boyfriends, as they support her. You're imagining this as more different from a monogamous relationship than it really is.Quote:
You had originally told us that you were your girlfriends special one. The Primary. Now you are saying that you don't care what your position is in your girlfriends sex life, as long as you get some time with her eventually.
It's more than "some time", it's the amount of time that I find sufficient, and ultimately it is what matters. I have more experience with polyamory than I did when I first set out on it over a year ago, and so I've changed my mind about some things. I care about the attention and affection I receive from her and I want to spend my life with her in the way that I wrote above in my response to Fred, but as long as I have that, I don't care about the primary-secondary hierarchy beyond that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 03:52 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 03:52, 28 Jun 2014.
|
You're so progressive, Mvass!
I'm imagining that things like this is super rare in the US?
Seriously, I'm Swedish, and I barely know any polyamorous people.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 03:57 AM |
|
|
It's rare in the US, but there are social groups where polyamory is more common, such as among socially liberal engineers/mathematicians/programmers/etc and those associated with them, as well as among more hippie-ish groups. Polyamory is still generally regarded negatively, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 04:16 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 04:22, 28 Jun 2014.
|
mvass, i would say you remind me of jesus, but then, with your duality of being a human being who views all else second after mankind's selfishness; i am stumped as how to properly define you. you are a complex man. maybe moreso than me, maybe not. thanks for explaining, nevertheless.
the first part you replied to confused me due to the wording, because it didn't match the context, or didn't seem to. the rest is something i read, and shook my head in disbelief. you and i are drastically different people. which i wouldn't say is a bad thing, except for the human selfishness part. lol, you know how i feel about that. 
actually, after considering for a second, you and i are much alike in one aspect: we both have very good and very bad sides to ourselves. and neither of us think that the "bad" side is a bad thing. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 06:18 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:32, 28 Jun 2014.
|
mvass said:
but contrary to what Artu suggests, sex is not the only thing that separates close friendships from relationships.
artu said:
anybody can have close friends or even little romantic tendencies to someone else while in a relationship. Sex is the part that separates the deal, unless you are talking about platonically falling in love with more than one person at the same time, which is very very unlikely.
Basically, having romantic tendencies isn't falling in love. I said you cant fall in love with two persons because the process of love involves uniqueness of the person and putting her in the center of things. "In love" is emotionally obsessive. If you are not going to address MY objection, it's fine but do not misrepresent my argument please. It's not me who says:
mvass said:
As far as I'm concerned, her having other partners is no different from her having close friends with whom she spends a good amount of time and the same is true for her and my future other partners
And the core of what I said was not even about sex:
artu said:
Emotional/attitudinal aspects of relationships involve devotion and there is a limit to the devotion, a single person is capable of. You cant madly fall in love with 5 people at the same time.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 10:53 AM |
|
|
Where's your evidence that there's a "limit to devotion"?
Seems arbitrary.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 04:09 PM |
|
|
Its called life experience Xerox. Something that Artu has a lot more of than you. You are not expected to understand at your age.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 04:14 PM |
|
|
meroe said:
You are not expected to understand at your age.
This is complete bullsnow and means that the person is just too stupid to explain it.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 05:15 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Where's your evidence that there's a "limit to devotion"?
Seems arbitrary.
Ok, I wont use self-experience, since one can always say that's a matter of personality. But I'll be back on this, so keep it in your pocket.
First of all, there's a qualitative contradiction rather than a quantitative shortage. When in love, we go through some psychological change, there is hormonal and chemical effects also if I remember correctly but since I feel too lazy to repeat that research right now, I wont be able to link it straight away. Think of all the love songs and stories and the way love is expressed "I cant think of anything but you, I see your face everywhere I go, at last my true love has come along, etc etc" These are derived from this psychological state and it's really not based on any social norm, in Muslim countries, historically, there was polygamy, it wasn't a taboo to marry more than one woman. Yet, all the legends, folk songs and stories about romantic love are still extremely monogamous. Just like Romeo and Juliette, you have Leyla and Mecnun, not Leyla, Ayshe, Fatma and Mecnun. That is because romantic love is an obsessive state that creates its own hierarchy.
Now, keep in mind that my original post is not strictly about sex or scorning polyamory regarding to having sexual intercourse with more than one person:
Quote:
both parties, monogamous or polyamorist, can come up with plenty of rationalization to claim their way of relationship is the more satisfactory and/or emotionally deeper one, (the polyamorist can easily say that bond of real love goes much deeper than sex, so why evaluate it over that).
In monogamy, there is a uniqueness to your partner in the physical intimacy part of the relationship also. Depending on the meaning you attach to sex, that can be something you may not want to sacrifice for simply having more sex. I mean, since you also care about keeping your position as the primary, that's what it comes down to basically, doesnt it, being able to get laid with people you like. You indicate that you would get jelaous, if some other person threatens that position.
So, if there is a primary and a prioritization, the same hierarchy still applies, not just based on sex. (Mvass later modified or let's say, elaborated his position but I wont get into that since it will give him a right of reply and that's not ethical when you ignore a person). What I'm saying is that prioritization is inevitable, it's what JoonasTo mentions as "there is always a favorite." Being IN love comes with demanding to be that favorite, (that's why, for example, there are crimes of passion). So in polyamory, the hierarchy is not abandoned, it only becomes less about sex and more about intimacy. But it's still there, otherwise we're talking about friends with benefits, which I don't judge, I just name it something else because it radically is. If a polyamorist puts effort to turn his/her relationships into something else to apply an ideal to his/her feelings, that means it is the ideal that is on the table, not the raw feelings themselves.
Second of all, I don't know what sort of evidence you expect when it comes to such an abstract thing but I think people's emotions having a capacity is pretty much self-evident since nothing in this world is without its limits.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 05:32 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Second of all, I don't know what sort of evidence you expect when it comes to such an abstract thing but I think people's emotions having a capacity is pretty much self-evident since nothing in this world is without its limits.
Scientific evidence proving its just not another social construct.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 05:43 PM |
|
|
|
I already replied to that.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 07:04 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:05, 28 Jun 2014.
|
I don't get what the biological point of that would be. Wouldn't our species odds of survival be better if we just snowed around like rabbits?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 07:16 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I don't get what the biological point of that would be. Wouldn't our species odds of survival be better if we just snowed around like rabbits?
i thought that's what people did. look at how many kids everyone has with different parents.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 10:45 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I don't get what the biological point of that would be. Wouldn't our species odds of survival be better if we just snowed around like rabbits?
No, for about 1000 different reasons.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 11:33 PM |
|
|
Okay, as Joonas has rightly called me out for my condescending post in reply to Xerox, I had better answer. Yes it was condescending, it was meant to be. Calling out someone who is older and has more life experience than you on a subject you have either no experience of or just begun to discover is arrogant beyond belief. Yeah I got a little angry.
It would be like if I were to turn to my grandparents and say I know more about successful relationships than they do, even though they have enjoyed 50 years of marriage (this year ..... woohoo, party). Obviously I don't. It would be so obnoxious of me to even wade into the conversation. It doesn't mean than I don't have something to add, it just means that when someone has a lot more experience than you, its wise to shut up for a minute and listen before spouting off stuff that makes you look like the immature fool you are.
Wisdom and experience are there for us to use, to reflect and as a way (hopefully) of helping us not to make the same mistakes. Yes its often where traditions come from, but they too can be very relevant in regards to how people rub along is society. And some things don't need changing.
However, Artu covered it quite nicely. Being 'in love' is different to loving people. I love a lot of people, however, I am not 'in love' with them. There is something unique to a couple when you forsake all others. Putting all your eggs in one basket. Investing everything into one person and them doing the same to you, takes an amazing amount of trust and belief. And trusting that person not to sleep with anyone else and only giving you their body and themselves is one of the ways you show that - to each other and to others. 'This person I am with, is the ultimate for me. I will go without all others for this person. I cannot live without them and would rather be dead/alone than not be with them". Polyamory does not give this. It simply can't. However, I am not saying that polyamorous couples cannot love each other. I am sure lots of long term sets ups do. But the fact that they cannot even save themselves for the one person who makes their heart skip and leap, is their loss. For them, sex is the most important thing, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be included in their friendships.
However, its all a waste of time because even showing scientific evidence won't change certain peoples minds. They simple do not want to accept certain truths.
Its like another post - 'surely mankind would be better suited if we all snowed around like rabbits'. Have you never read any history?? Or anything about human evolution? Babies cannot look after themselves when they are born like a lot of animals can. We have to invest years into a child to hopefully see it grow into adulthood. That takes more that one person.
Jeez - what a lovely thought - all the guys running around impregnating women with no consequence to themselves and not a care in the world about the woman, and buggering off leaving us to raise the kids on our own. Snow off!!! How sexist is that. It only happens that we have so many single parents now, is that we have welfare. Take that away and then number would drop dramatically. Also we, as a society, don't really like to see piles of dead baby carcasses left in the streets. So we have welfare and other organisations to help. And yes, guess what it gets abused.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 11:35 PM |
|
|
meroe said:
I am not saying that polyamorous couples cannot love each other. I am sure lots of long term sets ups do. But the fact that they cannot even save themselves for the one person who makes their heart skip and leap, is their loss. For them, sex is the most important thing, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be included in their friendships.
I wonder if you read my posts at all.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 11:49 PM |
|
|
Yeah I read them Mvass. Its just that they don't ring true a lot of the time, they don't make sense. One minute you are telling us .... remember you wanted to tell us all about this lifestyle of yours .... that you are the primary. Then you tell us that your girlfriend is now living with another guy. So it doesn't take much to work that she is sharing a bed with him. Which now means that you are not the primary. When this is brought up, you then tell us that you don't care about the 'hierarchy' as long as you get your quality time with your girlfriend.
Its a shame you don't understand what it is like reading your posts. Bewilderment is one reaction. I have known polyamorous people before, I've mentioned it. I've seen it.
I believe you though, when you say it is no problem for you. I really do. I believe this kind of lifestyle suits you. You don't come across as the most romantic and spontaneous of people. So I imagine a part-time romantic and emotional relationship is preferable to you. That is cool Mvass, really it is. And for you it could work out fine. You don't need your girlfriend around all the time etc etc. But make the most of it when you do have time together. And she may be very happy having a few partners that give her different things, experiences and views.
So, as I have said before, I really wish you the best. May your relationship be successful.
But its not remotely like a monogamous relationship. And where a monogamous relationship will lack the diversity of partners your lifestyle gives you and that you enjoy. So polyamory will lack that pure 'in love' relationship that is unique to monogamy.
Apples and Pears Mvass.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 28, 2014 11:52 PM |
|
|
This is what this is all about between mvass and meroe:
So polyamory will lack that pure 'in love' relationship that is unique to monogamy.
I just don't get how you can be so sure of that. This is practically the only reason why you disagree on this. How can you be so sure it is the case?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 12:03 AM |
|
Edited by meroe at 00:04, 29 Jun 2014.
|
JoonasTo said:
This is what this is all about between mvass and meroe:
So polyamory will lack that pure 'in love' relationship that is unique to monogamy.
I just don't get how you can be so sure of that. This is practically the only reason why you disagree on this. How can you be so sure it is the case?
Simple, you cannot invest all your deepest, craziest love into more than one person. Favoritism. No matter how hard you will try, you will never love two separate people equally. Seriously, how on earth could someone say and honestly believe themselves "I love you more than anything. I can't live without you". And then add, "Oooh and Colin too, don't forget Colin".
Mvass just has to understand and accept that polyamorous couples will care deeply and feel love for their extra partners. The love most of us have for really close friends - people we love and would do practically anything for, even though we don't have sex with them. But to claim that they are 'in love' with each and every partner exactly the same is a lie. There will be a primary relationship and the rest are friends with benefits. Its not an issue. That is just the truth.
However, for the record, I disagree with polyamory for other reasons too. But those are just my own personal dislikes towards polyamory. Its certainly not a lifestyle I would have anything to do with.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 12:29 AM |
|
|
meroe said:
Simple, you cannot invest all your deepest, craziest love into more than one person. Favoritism. No matter how hard you will try, you will never love two separate people equally. Seriously, how on earth could someone say and honestly believe themselves "I love you more than anything. I can't live without you". And then add, "Oooh and Colin too, don't forget Colin".
Oh I see. So you think you can't be in love with more than one person at a time? You don't have to love them equally to love them. "I love you so much I couldn't live without you." is a completely plausible line even if you love more than one person. Basically it is an infathomable idea to you that someone could be in love with more than one person?
We could arque that investing all your deepest, craziest love into one person is too much btw. We know for a fact that most people can't take that kind of obsession.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
