Do we overzealously push monoamorousness?

[elibol]

Originally posted by Thallium
Sex is not love. Sex is lust and desire.

what u quoted didnt have anything to do with lust and desire, nor sex. what are you implying?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by elibol
i think this has been stated too general, and should be a lot more circumstantial. more so based on each individual in the world, and that persons pre-existing relationships...

there are obvious reasons you have overlooked that monoamorous relationships are desired-> the simple fact that someone would rather have someone elses company as opposed to your exclusive company sort of makes you feel like ****.

I think that this falls into the category of jealousness. However, I'm sure that there are reasons that people can think of to support monoamorousness or actual reasons that cause people to support it, but I was not trying to make a list of such reasons.

and that's my point exactly, feel, emotion, things that separate us from animals.

i know animals have emotions, but not nearly as powerful as human emotion. which further backs my opinion.

I'm sorry to take the conversation off the course for a moment, but I always address this when it comes up. Animals have emotions just as powerful as ours. They may not has the capacity for as much complexity, but I can assure you that their intensity can be just as strong as ours. An good, objective analysis cannot come to the conclusion that you have just stated.

so you know, i favor neither, and stand by the fact that it is very circumstantial.

I think that we are rather on the same page here. I do not say that people should have their relationships one way or another, but that a certain type of relationship should be be forced or pressured onto people--let them choose without intimidation or peer pressure.

and i feel you favor polyamorously relationships because of the circumstances you happen to live under right now...

i could be wrong.

Right now, I'm not in any relationship, FYI (although I the prowl), although there will be times when such openness by others would benefit me. I did not bring this topic up because of any recent personal frustrations, but just because I thought it to be a potent topic. Either way, my motives are not important--if it is an interesting or important topic, then people should be happy that I brought it up.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
It would be nice if either side could make an argument that doesn't essentially start with the assumtion that their side is right.

If either side did that, neither side would have anything to argue about. At bottom, all ethical values are just that-- subjective, personal values. Discussing ethics requires that we makes such assumptions. There is really nothing to say that one emotional valuation is inherently superior to another. At most we can judge values based on the impact that they might have on the health and proliferation of an individual/family/society (and we have seen several arguments along these lines). But even that requires some basic assumptions of "goodness."

 

[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.

 

[elibol]

we b clear dissidant dan, just puting out things to discuss =]

there is one thing however i will reply to-> yes, i suppose the confliction i mentioned that one may run into when one desires to transist from a monoamorous relationship to a polyamorous one does describe jealousy directly... but jealousy seems so unavoidable for a person that is not interested in polyamorousity with a partner that is... i still think it is an important point to consider for anyone that is interested in polyamorousity with a pre-existing monoamorous relationship (which is the case for most people i believe).

tnx 4 pointing that out 4 me tho =]

 

[Be Happy!]

Originally posted by elibol
there is one thing however i will reply to-> yes, i suppose the confliction i mentioned that one may run into when one desires to transist from a monoamorous relationship to a polyamorous one does describe jealousy directly... but jealousy seems so unavoidable for a person that is not interested in polyamorousity with a partner that is... i still think it is an important point to consider for anyone that is interested in polyamorousity with a pre-existing monoamorous relationship (which is the case for most people i believe).

It is really interesting how the theme of jealousy keeps coming up- especially for those folks who don't like the thought of polyamorousness...

Having a relationship guided by jealousy seems counter to the idea of being with someone in the spirit of true friendship.

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

 

[elibol]

Originally posted by Be Happy!
It is really interesting how the theme of jealousy keeps coming up- especially for those folks who don't like the thought of polyamorousness...

Having a relationship guided by jealousy seems counter to the idea of being with someone in the spirit of true friendship.

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

definitely, so we can easily say we know something that most people don't =]

but jealousy is such that it will cloud judgement and rational thought...

so revealing this sort of logic to your partner could result in her/him reacting in a number of different ways depending on her/his opinion on what jealousy is, and whether it is purposely used for control over their partner...

what makes me sick is that people will use jealousy to mess with their partners. sort of try to keep them attached with jealousy inducing techniques...

very messed up...

 

[NUKEELT]

Originally posted by physicsisphirst

if someone you love, loves and is loved by another, shouldn't that be something to rejoice in? is your love's happiness not worth much?
[?]

Very very well stated. I think the true qualm is not jealousy but selfishness. People put their own happiness over that of those they claim to love. I personally believe that if you truly love someone you will consider their feelings and happiness before your own.

Thanks for taking the time to read what I had to say.
Gabriel

 

[Hurkyl]

if someone you love, loves and is loved by another, shouldn't that be something to rejoice in? is your love's happiness not worth much?

I think the true qualm is not jealousy but selfishness. People put their own happiness over that of those they claim to love. I personally believe that if you truly love someone you will consider their feelings and happiness before your own.

Let's give people names to make it easier to discuss. Alice loves Bob. Bob loves, and is loved by Cindy.


You seem to imply that Alice, knowing that Bob loves Cindy, is selfishly requiring Bob to love only herself.

However, that isn't the only possibility. What (I think) is more likely is that when Bob asked Alice out, Alice trusted that Bob didn't love anyone else. The qualm, then, is that Bob betrayed Alice's trust, not that Alice was being selfish.

 

[NUKEELT]

But the situation never stipulated that there was an understanding of exclusivity on the part of the two. Say Bob and Cindy are really good friends. Bob goes over to visit Cindy on a regular basis, they have great indepth talks and over a period of time bob and cindy begin to develop strong feelings for one another. All the while bob has yet another good friend that he spends a lot of time with, Alice. Bob and alice both also begin to develop strong feelings for one another. I feel that unless bob actually chooses to comit himself to one of them then being in love with them both and being loved by them both is a beautiful thing. I completely agree that if bob and alice come to a mutual agreement of exclusivity then it would be morally reprehensible for bob to continue to see Cindy in any other capacity than a casual friend. Now that we're on the same page with the situation what are your feelings? Thanks for the imput and I appreciate you reading my post.

Gabriel

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You seem to imply that Alice, knowing that Bob loves Cindy, is selfishly requiring Bob to love only herself.

there was no implication intended. however, whether cindy is being selfish is certainly open to question depending on how you define selfish and may prove to be an interesting exercise.

pragmatically though, if bob and alice have mutually agreed to monoamorosity they should respect that condition. if one does and the other doesn't, possibly one, the other or both should consider an internet dating service

however, my personal view is that sangeeta put it very well in that 1:1 ratios make more sense when the participants aren't engaging in it in order to protect their 'real estate'.

 

[pocebokli]

well i don't understand why do we need to complicate this matter any further.

I am Bob. I love Alice, she loves me, we both love Cynd and she loves us both so wheres the problem?:-)

well certainly jealousy is one of our instincts that come out when your loved one shows affection for another and vice versa, but after all (this goes to thallia), isn't jealousy as "bad" as desire and sex?
Even worse if you ask me. Sex benefits both partners, while jeaoulsy benefits neither, rather the opposite.

One who sails into polygamous waters must explore and in a way surpress his instinctive jealousy just as a monk must surpress his sexual desires.

And i don't think anything is wrong with that if the involved charachters have all agreed that they would like to live together and i don't know why some of you think that it's not possible to love 2 or 3 persons and take care of them as they care of you? It's as simple as long as everyone involved has no problem with that.

Of course, to live with 2 women or 2 men (and maybe even 2 men who live with 2 women but they all live together:-)) you must like and love everyone and show them respect and then i figure everythin's fine, just fine...

Love is not a bond if it's a true love, jealousy is a bond.

And just as monk surpresses his sexual desire to gain energy for sacred way of life and to prove something to himself, polygamz must also sacrifice some of their selfishness, jealousy and posessivenes which all of us are born with. Nothing comes all by itself.

 

[Dissident Dan]

If it's bad to be polyamorous because it causes jealousy, then is it bad to have more than one child because it causes jealousy?

 

[Evo]

Ok, the scenario - Bob loves Alice and Cindy, and he tells them both about the other. Let's even assume that Alice & Cindy are open to a love triangle. What if Alice & Cindy can't stand each other?

What if Alice confesses to Bob that she is also in love with Bill? But Bob and Bill are enemies? And Cindy is Bill's daughter from a former marriage?

 

[chroot]

And then a teenaged girl named Dawn shows up and tells the unsuspecting Bill that she's his long-lost daughter. She moves in with Edward, the pool boy, angering the neighbor, Frank, whose wife Gina doesn't like hearing their loud music at night. Officer Hugh shows up one night and takes them both to jail for noise ordinance violations. While they're in jail, Aunt Irene comes to give them a pie that she baked for the church bake sale with her friend Jane. Finally, two days later Bill's bail-bondsman best friend Kyle helps Dawn and Edward get out of jail. They go home, only to find that the vindictive neighbors poisoned their dog, Spot.

- Warren

 

[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.