Do we overzealously push monoamorousness?

[physicsisphirst]

the obvious plight of spot deeply affects the enemies bob and bill as well as the unstandables alice and cindy who recognize immediately that the dog's life is worth far more than their petty soap operatics. they all pour healing energy towards spot who recovers possibly with the assistance of a holistic veterinarian.

and they all (bob, alice, cindy, bill, dawn, eddie, angry franky, pensive gina, officer huey, his brothers louey and duey as well as uncle donald, auntie irene, jane, kyle, warren, evo, prad, paul fix, and of course spot) live happily ever after at least to the end of this thread.

 

[Evo]

Thanks physicsisphirst for bringing a happy ending to this tragedy!

I think that monoamorous relationships are difficult enough.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by Evo
Thanks physicsisphirst for bringing a happy ending to this tragedy!

I think that monoamorous relationships are difficult enough.

and thank you evo - spot's fate was worrying me considerably!

you are right though, monoamorous relationships can be difficult and polyamorous ones don't have any inborn claim to being any easier.

perhaps the real issue lies with this concept of 'relationship'.

 

[elibol]

basically, the more the people, the more complex the emotions/relationships are to be...

though this would not have been apparent to me without the example of the little story you've created, i still think that DRAMA IS NOT THE ANSWER.

props to warren ;)

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by physicsisphirst
and thank you evo - spot's fate was worrying me considerably!

I'm a sucker for animals.

perhaps the real issue lies with this concept of 'relationship'.

You have hit the nail on the head. I believe that most people enter a relationship assuming that it will be monoamorous. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people would not be readily "open" to the idea of their "loved one" suddenly deciding that he/she wanted to include someone else.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Evo
You have hit the nail on the head. I believe that most people enter a relationship assuming that it will be monoamorous. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people would not be readily "open" to the idea of their "loved one" suddenly deciding that he/she wanted to include someone else.

Which is probably where a lot of the problems in monoamorous relationships come from.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Which is probably where a lot of the problems in monoamorous relationships come from.

Yep.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by elibol
basically, the more the people, the more complex the emotions/relationships are to be...

not necessarily, eli.
nor is the complexity you speak of a detriment.

there is an african saying that i like very much:

"it takes a whole village to raise a child"

it is really a wonderful idea in theory and in practice despite the apparent added complexity. it is by no means exclusive to the african continent either.

for it to be successful, however, it does require the relinquishment of possessiveness towards your children and of course, the curses of jealousy, hatred and fear. such actions are good for the children, the parents and the village.

there is no reason why the same cannot be applied to other 'relationships' (if that is what you want to call them). this by no means suggests that everyone has to jump into each and every bed in the entire village, but it does mean that you are required to view yourself and your mono/poly partner(s) in a somewhat different way.

again, the concept of 'relationship' and what it entails, perhaps should be carefully re-examined.

 

[Evo]

Also, there is a difference in having sex with multiple partners and being in a "relationship" such as a marriage with multiple partners.

I cannot imagine having to put up with two husbands. (ok, I don't even have one)

Casual sex is something totally different.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Evo
Casual sex is something totally different.

Hubba hubba.

- Warren (after Victor, but before Xavier)

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by physicsisphirst
not necessarily, eli.
nor is the complexity you speak of a detriment.

there is an african saying that i like very much:

"it takes a whole village to raise a child"

it is really a wonderful idea in theory and in practice despite the apparent added complexity. it is by no means exclusive to the african continent either.

for it to be successful, however, it does require the relinquishment of possessiveness towards your children and of course, the curses of jealousy, hatred and fear. such actions are good for the children, the parents and the village.

there is no reason why the same cannot be applied to other 'relationships' (if that is what you want to call them). this by no means suggests that everyone has to jump into each and every bed in the entire village, but it does mean that you are required to view yourself and your mono/poly partner(s) in a somewhat different way.

again, the concept of 'relationship' and what it entails, perhaps should be carefully re-examined.

But in Africa, it's unusual, if not unheard of, for a woman to have more than one partner, correct?

I mentioned in an earlier post about an Amazon tribe where the women have multiple husbands.

How do you feel about being one of many men belonging to a single woman, but you cannot have any other women? Just curious.

 

[elibol]

Originally posted by physicsisphirst
not necessarily, eli.
nor is the complexity you speak of a detriment.

man, i still think the more the people, the more room for people to just fall in love with other people... more and more means more possibilities for the group of people to fall in love with others. until eventually i guess it really doesn't matter... maybe that should be the way it is...

IT DOESNT MATTER. just have sex with whoever the hell you want.

and love whoever you want.

BING BANG BOOM. end of conversation? most definitely not hehe...

but i don't think that was what he was trying to get across to me evo...

he just giving an example of how their guardian to child relationship could be compared to polyamournesness...

 

[elibol]

evo, we are posting on the same threads... COOL HUH?

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by elibol
evo, we are posting on the same threads... COOL HUH?

Yes, we are!

I agree with physicsisphirst on the idea of a village all sharing responsibilities. But it's not quite the same as polyamorousness in western society, which is more what this thread is about.

In those African societies, there is a high mortality rate. Having an extended family situation within a village helps with the premature loss of parents or children.

 

[elibol]

thats intersting you bring that up, i watched beyond boarders last night which portrays this very well...

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by Evo
But in Africa, it's unusual, if not unheard of, for a woman to have more than one partner, correct?
i don't know. the saying i used was reputed to being of african origin, but it could easily apply to many other cultures - nor does it have anything to do with amorousites of any kind. there was also never any intention to incite elibol into bing, bang, booming (as was fortunately recognized).

i quoted it merely to suggest that societal changes can occur when there are appropriate attitudinal changes.

I mentioned in an earlier post about an Amazon tribe where the women have multiple husbands.
this was apparently true in sparta too. women had multiple 'husbands' and the intention was to produce strong stock according to spartan 'needs'. there have probably been many cultures where the 'ends' encouraged these 'means'.

however, these arrangements be they woman : men or man : women have little to do with the point i was making. those were brought about by the particular needs or philosophies of the culture - they were the expected norm and so they were followed. it is probably unlikely that the participants had a chance to put much contemplation into their matrimonies. the system worked because it was expected to be a certain way - and as with most systems, those who disagreed were viewed as radicals or even as threats to the status quo.

what I'm getting at is not to be accepting of a system simply because it is the cultural norm. rather, if we look beyond the societal dictatorships and beyond the sexual gymnastics, it may be possible to see that 'relationships' (be they mono or poly) can indeed flourish with simplicity and purity. like the saying asks: "why fall in love, when you can soar to it?"

How do you feel about being one of many men belonging to a single woman, but you cannot have any other women? Just curious.
for me, it seems absolutely essential! how else could i have the time to spend on these forums unless i had a bit of help

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
But one can try to establish a common ground, and then sketch a path from said common ground to the position one holds.

Or at the very least, try to at least sketch a path from some basic ideas that the other side might not agree with, but can understand.

The thing is that the very common ground is what's up for grabs here, and it depends entirely on one's own emotional valuation. Is it better to be monoamorous or polyamorous? That depends on what one emotionally values in a relationship, and emotional valuation is contingent upon one's own personal makeup, and personal makeups will naturally differ from person to person, so I question the idea that a meaningful common ground can even be established here.

I would also like to say that pejoratively characterizing a desire for monoamorousness as jealousy is faulty reasoning. Desiring monoamorousness does not automatically imply a jealous personality. Say someone likes to set aside a few hours of the day to be alone and away from everyone else. Does this mean that the person has a selfish aspect to him? Does it this fact alone indicate anything other than a personal preference? It seems to me that saying monoamorousness must imply a jealous nature is no better than saying polyamorousness must imply a sexually perverted nature. Both can exist without the pejoratives with which we are sometimes so quickly tempted to associate them.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I would also like to say that pejoratively characterizing a desire for monoamorousness as jealousy is faulty reasoning. Desiring monoamorousness does not automatically imply a jealous personality.

this is the very point be happy! was making (though from a slightly different perspective):

"Wouldn't it make more sense to be in a monoamorous relationship without jealousy, as opposed to being in it because of jealousy?"

and it is certainly an important one.

if you have found or created 'the one' and therefore have no wish for accommodating others, you are certainly not being jealous - rather, you are probably being extremely sensible.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I would also like to say that pejoratively characterizing a desire for monoamorousness as jealousy is faulty reasoning. Desiring monoamorousness does not automatically imply a jealous personality. Say someone likes to set aside a few hours of the day to be alone and away from everyone else. Does this mean that the person has a selfish aspect to him? Does it this fact alone indicate anything other than a personal preference? It seems to me that saying monoamorousness must imply a jealous nature is no better than saying polyamorousness must imply a sexually perverted nature. Both can exist without the pejoratives with which we are sometimes so quickly tempted to associate them.

Exactly. Also, besides it not necessarily being related to jealousy, how can one person assume that the two (or more) people he/she "loves" will get along with each other? That's asking quite a bit.