|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
posted June 29, 2014 12:47 AM |
|
|
Being in love with someone in a monogamous relationship doesn't have to be about obsession. However, if you are telling me that you believe its an honest thing to tell several different people in your life that you "love them more than anything"? To all of them? doesn't make you out to be a liar?
Plus most people like to feel special. And having a unique monogamous relationship is part of that. And you are not special if your partner has several other sexual partners. You are just part of the stable.
____________
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
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 12:53 AM |
|
|
Why? I have feelings for like three people at the same time right now.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 12:56 AM |
|
|
meroe said:
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.
As far as emotional investment and how much we care about each other, I'm a primary, if you want to put it in primary-secondary terms. As for living with her, the reason I don't live with her is that until recently, it would've been difficult logistically (as we have jobs in different cities), but we'll start living together in the near future. Just because she's not living with me doesn't mean she's any less close to me.
If this were a monogamous relationship, but my girlfriend would spend a lot of time with her close friends, you presumably wouldn't call it a "part-time relationship". This isn't any different - she spends some time around me, and some time around other people. The difference is how she feels towards them and what she does with them, but whether it's "full-time" or "part-time" is not one of the differences.
As for having favorites, one can have more than one favorite. One can have several equally close friends, several favorite foods, favorite games, and so on, without feeling that one of them is better than another. The same applies here, for a situation in which a person has more than one primary.
(Also, you seem to be assuming that she'll be the only one to have other partners, but I'll have other partners too.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 02:04 AM |
|
|
Of course you are special. You're part of the team special. All of you in the relationship are special to each other. It's not like a herd of horses where the stallion gathers all it can, it's the racing stable where all the special ones get to go and be awesome together.
You also seem to be handling this from a one-to-many situation. There can also be many-to-many situations.
meroe said:
However, if you are telling me that you believe its an honest thing to tell several different people in your life that you "love them more than anything"?
I'm not, read it again. 
Perhaps this is all a problem for you because you don't have inherent value in love. It only has value for you if you compare it?
Let me try a comparison, if five people take a test and they all get 100% are they all amazing? Or is the test worthless?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 03:45 AM |
|
|
|
the word "love" is a problem I think, it may mean pretty much anything you like. I think it's just a product of our imagination. would we start such relationships if we didn't imagine them first?
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 05:03 AM |
|
|
How do I not have an inherent value in love??? Why would me preferring monogamy mean that I cannot have a deep understanding and value of love? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? How do comparisons come into it?
And why would I want to be part of a 'special team', or one of a few? Why would I settle for that?
____________
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
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 08:42 AM |
|
|
JoonasTo said:
Let me try a comparison, if five people take a test and they all get 100% are they all amazing? Or is the test worthless?
No offense JoonasTo but that's the worst analogy I heard for quite a while. Getting a score on a test is about deserving it, you don't love someone because they deserve it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 09:53 AM |
|
|
You love someone because of their qualities, and if their qualities pass a certain threshold, then Joonas's analogy is accurate.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 10:09 AM |
|
|
You people should stop to argue solely for the reason of wanting to be RIGHT, but instead consider the possibility that everyone is merely trying to do things in a way suited best to them individually, and that you do NOT need to rationalize things and underlay them with a sheen of "I'm doing something that is RIGHT". I'm doing things MY WAY, AND I LIKE IT THAT WAY is just enough.
For what it's worth, I think that "polyamory" is suiting young people - it saves time. Instead of spending a couple of month exclusively with ONE person, hysterically being in love and hysterically out of it after seeing "partner" looking at someone else, Mvass's way is very useful: it promises a maximum in terms of experience, learning and fun, while it costs nothing: should the situation arise that one part of the relatiionship web feels like moving one of them to exclusivity status - well, it would be not impossible.
However, there will probably come a time when OTHER things may get important. That time comes when you have to share economically. It gets complicated when you share a flat with someone you have a romantic relationship with - but both have a couple besides: why share a flat at all, then?
It gets even more complicated if you want to have children. Polyamory isn't impossible, it's just difficult to organize; practically, the omly solution is - for the sake of everyone involved - to live in one big family, but in practise that will be as difficult as communism.
Then there are the practical things of life: work. Like a sailor, in every harbor a broad, that may work if you are very mobile in your profession, but not with a family. The same problem arises, when you have a very stressful job with many work hours.
There will come the point when you can only ONE LOVE - that will be EITHER your work OR a family (a partner plus child(ren) (but not both), but of course you can have any number of superficial affairs, whether in life or in love.
So the bottom line is this: there is no RIGHT way here; there are only a number of ways that mway or may not suit different people differently depending on their situation and their preferences. Keep in mind:
YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 10:27 AM |
|
|
meroe said:
How do I not have an inherent value in love??? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? How do comparisons come into it?
And why would I want to be part of a 'special team', or one of a few? Why would I settle for that?
Because the only way I've ever seen you define the love in this thread has been in comparative terms. It caused me to wonder if the way you define love is like that.
I love you more than my friends, ergo, you are my brother. I love you more than my brothers, ergo, you are my son. I love you more than my sons, ergo, you are my father. I love you more than my father, ergo you are my husband. Or something like that.
The way you treat the 'special team', or one of a few only serves to further make me think this is how you view the world. Say you are part of this one of a few who make it into somewhere. Is it worse than if you're the only one who makes it into somewhere else?
You don't know what it tells about you as such. You know what it tells about you in relation to those that tried to make it in there. That you're among the five best of them or that you were the best of them. Is it really better to be the king of the midden than in the top five of Buckingham?
Quote:
Why would me preferring monogamy mean that I cannot have a deep understanding and value of love?
I never said that.
____________
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 29, 2014 10:38 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
You love someone because of their qualities, and if their qualities pass a certain threshold, then Joonas's analogy is accurate.
In a test, to meet the qualifications is strictly linear and pragmatic. When it comes to love, there are many factors that cause you to feel what you feel, most of them not deliberative. You love someone IF her qualities pass a certain threshold, yes, but you don't love someone BECAUSE of that threshold. Somebody else, who meets exactly the same qualifications that you consciously or subconsciously seek for, may not interest you at all. That is the opposite situation of being in a test, in which meeting the qualifications means getting the same results and being treated equally.
@JJ
Yes, you cant have everything. Although, I fail to see how that contradicts with anything I say. I was the one who said both monogamous and polyamorous people will have their own justifications. This is not and had never been about finding "the righteous path."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 12:19 PM |
|
|
I was merely trying to steer things back to a less heated course.
Keep in mind that love is supposed to be selfless, ideally, which would make jealousy a very un-loving feeling. So, paradoxically, the more exclusive a relationship becomes, the more egoistic ist could be called - and the less pure the feeling as such might be considered.
I think, that this is very difficult an issue - IDEALLY, we should be able to have multiple deep relationships, but as always, ideally communism and christianity should be a great thing as well: they all have something to do with SHARING and SELFLESSNESS: since love is so positive, there should only positive things arise from it, but sadly, sadly, REALITY is an altogether different beast, and humans are limited and flawed, which means simply, IDEALLY DOESN'T WORK.
All sides should be careful not to GENERALIZE. This is an exclusively SUBJECTIVE issue, and you (all) should accept that, in particular Mvass will have to sccept as well that his way is just HIS - it makes no sense to craft theories from it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 08:19 PM |
|
|
artu said:
You love someone IF her qualities pass a certain threshold, yes, but you don't love someone BECAUSE of that threshold. Somebody else, who meets exactly the same qualifications that you consciously or subconsciously seek for, may not interest you at all. That is the opposite situation of being in a test, in which meeting the qualifications means getting the same results and being treated equally.
There are a lot of necessary qualities when it comes to love, some of which are difficult to articulate, but that means that someone who doesn't interest you either doesn't actually meet your desired qualifications or you aren't paying enough attention to them. Sure, it's possible to construct a list of qualities you like and then find yourself not interested in someone who has every quality on that list, but that either means that the list isn't exhaustive or that you aren't thinking of the person as someone you could be interested in.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 08:34 PM |
|
|
No. Love isnt about deliberately picking a person because they meet some qualifications on a list, so how exhaustive that list is completely irrelevant. What you are talking about is a relationship/marriage of convinience.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 08:50 PM |
|
|
|
dating sites seem exactly that way, which is probably why each profile leaves you as indifferent as all the others.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 08:53 PM |
|
|
artu said:
No. Love isnt about deliberately picking a person because they meet some qualifications on a list, so how exhaustive that list is completely irrelevant.
Of course, you don't actually look at a person, then compare their qualities to the qualities on your list, then decide whether to be interested in them. But you do look at a person, become interested in them (or not), then look at the qualities on your list and find that they have those qualities (if you're interested in them) and also know that if they didn't have the qualities on that list, you wouldn't have become interested in them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 09:07 PM |
|
|
No, people fall in love with unexpected matches for reasons they can not comprehend, all the time. Sometimes they ruin their life because of it, commit suicide, risk their health or even life... I am not claiming reasons dont exist, I'm saying they are beyond calculation and not always rational. Not in every situation, but to know why you fall in love with someone can be as hard as trying to determine why every bit of smoke in the air moved this way instead of that way. It is not something you can predetermine.
You can have 1000 people who are equally deserving to get 100% on a test but that is definitely not the case with love because the motive is not based on deserving it and fairness.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 09:25 PM |
|
|
Someone can have incomplete knowledge of their real list, i.e. what they're aware of as their list and the qualities they're actually interested in may be different, and if this is the case, then they're going to find themselves becoming interested in people who don't have the qualities they think they want or even have qualities contrary to what they think they want. And whether they know their list well or not, the qualities that attract people need not be well-considered - for example, a person can be attracted to qualities that upon reflection they would find to be negative, as in the case of guys liking "bad girls" or girls liking "bad boys".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 29, 2014 09:47 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:49, 29 Jun 2014.
|
Your list can only exist in the head of an omniscient creature. It's idealistic and completely beside the point when it comes to why I objected to the analogy. Another gap in your argument is, the traits of the person is not the only factor that motivates love. To be in the right place at the right time, your emotional availability, past experiences, psychological state while you start to get to know each other are all very important factors. You may not even fall in love with the very same person you normally would if the conditions are wrong. And not everybody falls in love through their life.
Anyway, this has prolonged enough and honestly, I feel uncomfortable arguing with someone who called me a troll out of nowhere without any justifiable reason. Please refrain from directly quoting me and putting me in a position to reply.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2014 04:08 AM |
|
|
Update: I've moved in with my girlfriend, and, interestingly, with her other primary. It works conveniently in terms of logistics, and he's fun to be around. I've also met another one of her boyfriends.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
