considering entering my first polyamorous relationship. help!
xac...@gmail.com
woman for about 2 months. she is polyamorous. i have never been in a
relationship of that nature. i have been in only monogamous
relationships and never really challenged them ideologically.
my understanding of monogamy is something that has nothing to do with
ownership or control over the partner, nor does it have to do with
making a commitment to them. for me, when i reach a certain level of
love for another person i have a desire to know them on a deeper
level, to explore and embrace the inner workings of their person and
inversely to open up my own self for them to explore. for this to
happen i need or at least i think i need to stop seeing other people
so that i can be fully present for this partner.
secondly jealousy is a factor. as base an emotion as it is,
practically instinctual, i feel it very strongly knowing that she is
intimate with other people. i don't know what to do because i don't
particularly want to see other people but i feel like jealousy would
be a big factor if i was monogamous in a polyamorous relationship. the
woman i am seeing is an absolutely wonderful person and i don't want
to end things with her because of these differences yet i'm not sure
that it can work. ideologically i think polyamory is probably
evolutionarily more advanced than monogamy, which to my knowledge is
an institution formed subjectively and is used as a mechanism for
social control via sexual oppression. however as much as ive fought
against societies brand on my morality, rethought its doctrine,
discovered my own moral beliefs, and worked to apply them in my life,
this is one i still struggle with. i'm not sure if i should try to put
my moral beliefs over my emotional self and embrace this new type of
relationship, or if this would be a mistake in that i may not be ready
for it. i'm not sure what i'm hoping for by posting this ive never
posted here before. if you have some insight on the situation i will
be greatly indebted.
Aqua
You may not be a polyamorous person. It happens. It doesn't make you
"less evolved" any more than being heterosexual or liking vanilla does.
It's also quite possible that it's simply that the whole idea is very
new to you. How long has your partner known about polyamory, and
thought of herself as polyamorous? Would she be willing to give you the
same amount of time to get comfortable with the idea? Have you talked
to her about how relationships feel to you emotionally? Does she accept
that, or is she trying to argue you out of it "ideologically" (which
would make me take a large step backwards)
Even if it turns out you can be polyamorous, there are so many different
kinds of polyamory you and your partner could still be incompatible.
Aqua
tacit
xac...@gmail.com wrote:
> my understanding of monogamy is something that has nothing to do with
> ownership or control over the partner, nor does it have to do with
> making a commitment to them. for me, when i reach a certain level of
> love for another person i have a desire to know them on a deeper
> level, to explore and embrace the inner workings of their person and
> inversely to open up my own self for them to explore.
Sounds reasonable. I also tend to want this from my partners.
> for this to
> happen i need or at least i think i need to stop seeing other people
> so that i can be fully present for this partner.
Why? Why does what your partner does with something else affect how you
present yourself to your partner? Is it a question of not wanting to
make yourself vulnerable to a person who you feel you do not trust,
coupled with a feeling that you can not trust a person who is intimate
with someone else to be there for you? (This is a description I've heard
from a couple of people who identify as monogamous.) Something else
entirely?
> secondly jealousy is a factor. as base an emotion as it is,
> practically instinctual, i feel it very strongly knowing that she is
> intimate with other people.
In my experience, jealousy is not a simple emotion. It is an emotion
that rises from OTHER emotions, such as fear of being replaced, fear of
loss, a feeling of being threatened, fear of being superseded in your
partners time or affections, or something along those lines.
I have never successfully dealt with, nor personally known anyone who
has dealt with, jealousy without understanding what other emotion it is
rooted in.
Jealousy is not an automatic response, in the sense that it is not
"caused by" your partner's behavior. Rather, it is the result of your
emotional response to your partner's behavior. Your partner does
something, you feel like you might be replaced or you might lose your
partner or something like that, and then your jealousy arises from that
feeling. Ergo, you can't simply will it away; instead, in my experience,
you must understand that emotion that gives rise to the jealousy, and
deal with *it*. Take care of the original emotional reaction, and the
jealousy becomes easier to tame.
> i don't know what to do because i don't
> particularly want to see other people but i feel like jealousy would
> be a big factor if i was monogamous in a polyamorous relationship.
In my experience, it does not work that way. If you are jealous of Sue,
and you start relationships with Bettie and Ann and Alice, that will not
in any way eliminate your jealousy of Sue. Jealousy doesn't work that
way; its unique to your emotional response to Sue.
> the
> woman i am seeing is an absolutely wonderful person and i don't want
> to end things with her because of these differences yet i'm not sure
> that it can work. ideologically i think polyamory is probably
> evolutionarily more advanced than monogamy, which to my knowledge is
> an institution formed subjectively and is used as a mechanism for
> social control via sexual oppression.
*shrug* There are people who would agree with oyu about polyamory being
more "advanced" and monogamy being about social control. I'm
polyamorous, and I'm not one of them.
I think there are people who are polyamorous by inclination or by nature
or whatever; people who are monogamous by nature or inclination or
whatever; people who can, under the right circumstances and with the
right partner(s) be happy either way; and that all this is just a normal
part of ordinary human variability. Neither is more "advanced" than the
other, evolutionarily or otherwise.
If you are a person who prefers monogamy, why drive yourself nuts or
beat yourself up believing that you "should" be polyamorous because
polyamory is "more advanced"? Go with the relationship model that
maximizes your happiness, and seek partners who prefer a similar
relationship model.
> however as much as ive fought
> against societies brand on my morality, rethought its doctrine,
> discovered my own moral beliefs, and worked to apply them in my life,
> this is one i still struggle with.
This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the
night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.
--
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Aahz Maruch
spewing disinformation, someone needs to counter it]
In article <tacitr-150C2D....@netnews.comcast.net>,
tacit <tac...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In my experience, jealousy is not a simple emotion. It is an emotion
>that rises from OTHER emotions, such as fear of being replaced, fear of
>loss, a feeling of being threatened, fear of being superseded in your
>partners time or affections, or something along those lines.
Fear, fear, fear, that's all you ever talk about. Many people feel
jealousy out of other emotions, and for some people, jealousy is a
simple emotion akin to anger or fear.
>I have never successfully dealt with, nor personally known anyone who
>has dealt with, jealousy without understanding what other emotion it is
>rooted in.
You have been told this before: you are wrong, unless you discount people
from alt.poly as "not personally knowing".
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades
will seriously cramp his style." --SKZB, PJF
Kai Jones
>In my experience, jealousy is not a simple emotion. It is an emotion
>that rises from OTHER emotions, such as fear of being replaced, fear of
>loss, a feeling of being threatened, fear of being superseded in your
>partners time or affections, or something along those lines.
Wow, that's not my experience of it.
>I have never successfully dealt with, nor personally known anyone who
>has dealt with, jealousy without understanding what other emotion it is
>rooted in.
I get jealous when I see what I wanted from my partner (and didn't
get) being given to someone else. It's not fear of anything, it's
jealousy. It's "that is supposed to be mine!"
--
Kai Jones sni...@pacifier.com http://snippy.livejournal.com
Smartass by nurture as well as nature. Oh yeah, and I'm contrary, too.
Stef
Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>I have never successfully dealt with, nor personally known anyone who
>>has dealt with, jealousy without understanding what other emotion it is
>>rooted in.
>
>I get jealous when I see what I wanted from my partner (and didn't
>get) being given to someone else. It's not fear of anything, it's
>jealousy. It's "that is supposed to be mine!"
I'm glad you are using my brain. My sinuses are too stuffed up to make
room for it.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
"The dust in the streets, and the wind. Is it always like this now?"
-- "And the Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place," Babylon 5
tacit
> I get jealous when I see what I wanted from my partner (and didn't
> get) being given to someone else. It's not fear of anything, it's
> jealousy. It's "that is supposed to be mine!"
I've heard that described as "envy" rather than "jealousy."
Kai Jones
this:
>In article <cl8oh3ph3ta5k93l9...@4ax.com>,
> Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>> I get jealous when I see what I wanted from my partner (and didn't
>> get) being given to someone else. It's not fear of anything, it's
>> jealousy. It's "that is supposed to be mine!"
>
>I've heard that described as "envy" rather than "jealousy."
In my head, envy is "I want that too." Jealosy is "I want that taken
away from you and given to me" or "You can't have that, it's mine and
mine exclusively." Is that not how most people use the words?
--
Kai Jones sni...@pacifier.com
"Comme c'est curieux, comme c'est bizarre et quelle coincidence!" La Cantatrice Chauve by Ionesco
Serene
> In article <cl8oh3ph3ta5k93l9...@4ax.com>,
> Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>> I get jealous when I see what I wanted from my partner (and didn't
>> get) being given to someone else. It's not fear of anything, it's
>> jealousy. It's "that is supposed to be mine!"
>
> I've heard that described as "envy" rather than "jealousy."
>
To me, envy parses as "They have that, and I want it, too," as
opposed to jealousy, which parses as "They have that, and I don't
want them to have it -- I want it to be MINE."
Serene
--
Spin the auto-sig generator, and she says:
I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I
equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or
of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than
any other: they lie outside the region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of
them. [Bertrand Russell]
Aahz Maruch
Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:33:55 -0400, tacit <tac...@aol.com> published
>this:
>>In article <cl8oh3ph3ta5k93l9...@4ax.com>,
>> Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I get jealous when I see what I wanted from my partner (and didn't
>>> get) being given to someone else. It's not fear of anything, it's
>>> jealousy. It's "that is supposed to be mine!"
>>
>>I've heard that described as "envy" rather than "jealousy."
>
>In my head, envy is "I want that too." Jealosy is "I want that taken
>away from you and given to me" or "You can't have that, it's mine and
>mine exclusively." Is that not how most people use the words?
Nobody knows how "most people" use those words; both ways are common in
the wild, which causes no end of confusion. But tacit's claim about
definitions doesn't line up with his claim about jealousy being caused by
fear, which leads me to think he's just plain confused.
Phoenix
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:33:55 -0400, tacit <tac...@aol.com> published
> this:
>>In article <cl8oh3ph3ta5k93l9...@4ax.com>,
>>Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>>I get jealous when I see what I wanted from my partner (and didn't
>>>get) being given to someone else. It's not fear of anything, it's
>>>jealousy. It's "that is supposed to be mine!"
>>I've heard that described as "envy" rather than "jealousy."
> In my head, envy is "I want that too." Jealosy is "I want that taken
> away from you and given to me" or "You can't have that, it's mine and
> mine exclusively." Is that not how most people use the words?
Dunno about "most", but that's how I use them. And most folks I know,
too. (But my acquaintance circle is generally at the edges of all the
bell curves, so I wouldn't use it as a good statistical sampling technique.)
Deborah
(Explicit Bid for Sympathy: I just had my first (and I hope to Ghu my
LAST!!!) kidney stone. OWOWOWOWOWOWOW. (and some of those pain meds the
hospital can give you are Very Very Nice...))
Aahz Maruch
Phoenix <drup...@clearspringlabs.com> wrote:
>
>(Explicit Bid for Sympathy: I just had my first (and I hope to Ghu my
>LAST!!!) kidney stone. OWOWOWOWOWOWOW. (and some of those pain meds the
>hospital can give you are Very Very Nice...))
May you heal quickly and continue to receive succor from Better Living
Through Chemistry [tm].
Kai Jones
<drup...@clearspringlabs.com> wrote:
>(Explicit Bid for Sympathy: I just had my first (and I hope to Ghu my
>LAST!!!) kidney stone. OWOWOWOWOWOWOW. (and some of those pain meds the
>hospital can give you are Very Very Nice...))
*Sympathy*!
Guy W. Thomas
<snip>
> Deborah
> (Explicit Bid for Sympathy: I just had my first (and I hope to Ghu my
> LAST!!!) kidney stone. OWOWOWOWOWOWOW. (and some of those pain meds the
> hospital can give you are Very Very Nice...))
Oh my! Much sympathy, I can't imagine how much that must hurt.
--
Guy W. Thomas
San Leandro, CA
http://www.xango.org http://stonebender.livejournal.com/
"I have no discernible guilt about having het privilege. I have it, but
it's not my fault that I do. It is, however, my perception that I'm
responsible for trying to spread the privilege around a bit."
— Serene Vannoy, on being out as bi, poly and atheist
Serene
> (Explicit Bid for Sympathy: I just had my first (and I hope to Ghu my
> LAST!!!) kidney stone. OWOWOWOWOWOWOW. (and some of those pain meds the
> hospital can give you are Very Very Nice...))
OWWWWW!! All better now, I hope?
Serene
--
Spin the auto-sig generator, and she says:
"Basic Flying Rules: 1. Try to stay in the middle of the air. 2.
Do not go near the edges of it. 3. The edges of the air can be
recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees
and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there." -
- http://safecopter.arc.nasa.gov/
Phoenix
> Phoenix wrote:
>> (Explicit Bid for Sympathy: I just had my first (and I hope to Ghu my
>> LAST!!!) kidney stone. OWOWOWOWOWOWOW. (and some of those pain meds
>> the hospital can give you are Very Very Nice...))
> OWWWWW!! All better now, I hope?
Seems to be, yes...not quite *all* there, but oh my, so much better than
last night.
I deal with pain on a daily basis; it doesn't generally cause great
complaints. But last night I was rocking, crying, and wailing. It Would
NOT Stop. And...and..and...NO endorphins! That's just not fair. If it's
going to hurt that bad (and Tamara, who has had children and who had a
kidney stone two years ago, described it as "way worse than
childbirth"), the least I could get out of it is an endorphin rush. Darn it.
So glad I have honeys to take good care of me and take me to the ER when
needed. I could barely walk; I can't imagine trying to drive myself there.
Deborah
soon to be sassy again
Aahz Maruch
Stef
Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:33:55 -0400, tacit <tac...@aol.com> published
>this:
>
>>In article <cl8oh3ph3ta5k93l9...@4ax.com>,
>> Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I get jealous when I see what I wanted from my partner (and didn't
>>> get) being given to someone else. It's not fear of anything, it's
>>> jealousy. It's "that is supposed to be mine!"
>>
>>I've heard that described as "envy" rather than "jealousy."
>
>In my head, envy is "I want that too." Jealosy is "I want that taken
>away from you and given to me" or "You can't have that, it's mine and
>mine exclusively." Is that not how most people use the words?
That's also how I use the words. (Envy could also be "I want something
like that," as opposed to "I want that specific one.")
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
If a woman is shunned, it is...oftentimes something as simple as
expressing a slightly different belief or wearing an unapproved
color--small, small things as well as large ones. -- Clarissa Pinkola
Estes, Women Who Run With the Wolves
piranha
> In my head, envy is "I want that too." Jealosy is "I want that taken
> away from you and given to me" or "You can't have that, it's mine and
> mine exclusively." Is that not how most people use the words?
i don't know from "most people"; in the circles in which i talk about
such things your definitions are common, but i occasionally see the
reverse, which is very confusing.
i use envy like you do, but my concept of jealousy is odd. it doesn't
have the "exclusively mine" connotation, but it definitely has the "i
don't want YOU to have it" undertone -- it is very specific to a
person who i consider a threat, and does not generalize to other
people. however, most of all it feels like "what was mine is being
taken away from me, it's MINE and i want to KEEP it".
i feel jealous rarely, and i fit into tacit's concept of "there are
underlying emotions". mine are imminent fear of loss and some anger
associated with that, and sadness. i usually feel jealousy as a
warning sign, and the loss tends to be underway, if not explicitly
stated (ie. i have felt jealousy when i had the vague notion that a
partner was having something going on with somebody else, but neither
was i told nor was the partner necessarily even aware).
it's not relegated to partners and romantic r'ships either; i've felt
it with friends, and even at work.
--
-piranha
Kai Jones
wrote:
>On Oct 22, 4:47 pm, Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>> In my head, envy is "I want that too." Jealosy is "I want that taken
>> away from you and given to me" or "You can't have that, it's mine and
>> mine exclusively." Is that not how most people use the words?
[...]
>i feel jealous rarely, and i fit into tacit's concept of "there are
>underlying emotions". mine are imminent fear of loss and some anger
>associated with that, and sadness.
I have anger and frustration associated with jealousy usually. But
not fear or sadness.
>i usually feel jealousy as a
>warning sign, and the loss tends to be underway, if not explicitly
>stated
Hmm. I have felt jealous when what happened was not a loss (which I
think of as something I already had being taken away), but a failure
to get something in the first place. E.g., I am jealous when my boss
asks a different secretary something that I either know or can do--or
when zie does it zirself instead of asking me to. But the strongest
jealousy for me is when I have made a request of a partner, they have
said what I want isn't available from them at all (not just to me, to
anyone), and then I observe them giving it to someone else.
>it's not relegated to partners and romantic r'ships either; i've felt
>it with friends, and even at work.
So yeah, for me it's possible to be jealous in lots of relationships,
including work.
Phoenix
> But the strongest
> jealousy for me is when I have made a request of a partner, they have
> said what I want isn't available from them at all (not just to me, to
> anyone), and then I observe them giving it to someone else.
Ow. Yes, that. (Echoes of Poly Hell coming through here.)
Deborah
definitely perky today
Pat Kight
> (Explicit Bid for Sympathy: I just had my first (and I hope to Ghu my
> LAST!!!) kidney stone. OWOWOWOWOWOWOW. (and some of those pain meds the
> hospital can give you are Very Very Nice...))
*sympathy*
(My doctor, who's experienced both, says a kidney stone is much worse
than childbearing ...)
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Ruth Lawrence
"Kai Jones" wrote
> I have anger and frustration associated with jealousy usually. But
> not fear or sadness.
Me neither, excepting that I can feel a bit down about myself for being
jealous over trivialities.
>
>>i usually feel jealousy as a
>>warning sign, and the loss tends to be underway, if not explicitly
>>stated
>
> Hmm. I have felt jealous when what happened was not a loss (which I
> think of as something I already had being taken away), but a failure
> to get something in the first place. E.g., I am jealous when my boss
> asks a different secretary something that I either know or can do--or
> when zie does it zirself instead of asking me to. But the strongest
> jealousy for me is when I have made a request of a partner, they have
> said what I want isn't available from them at all (not just to me, to
> anyone), and then I observe them giving it to someone else.
That's the kind of jealousy to which I, too, am prone.
The boss example is the kind that has me feeling negative about myself.
The partner example is where I feel angry as well as jealous: I do so hate
to be messed around, told woppers or manipulated.
Ruth
Vicki Rosenzweig
19:12:31 -0700:
>(Explicit Bid for Sympathy: I just had my first (and I hope to Ghu my
>LAST!!!) kidney stone. OWOWOWOWOWOWOW. (and some of those pain meds the
>hospital can give you are Very Very Nice...))
*explicit sympathy*: Oh dear. yes, I hope it's the last, and
that the hospital has given you enough of the nice pain meds.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
"Regret, by definition, comes too late,
Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate." --John M. Ford
Jim Roberts
Amazing. My reactions are almost identical. I cannot bear lying or
deception. The Giant River Otter can sleep.
jimbat
Jim Roberts
> i'm a 21 year old heterosexual man who has been dating a bisexual
> woman for about 2 months. she is polyamorous. i have never been in a
> relationship of that nature. i have been in only monogamous
> relationships and never really challenged them ideologically.
>
> my understanding of monogamy is something that has nothing to do with
> ownership or control over the partner, nor does it have to do with
> making a commitment to them. for me, when i reach a certain level of
> love for another person i have a desire to know them on a deeper
> level, to explore and embrace the inner workings of their person and
> happen i need or at least i think i need to stop seeing other people
> so that i can be fully present for this partner.
>
> practically instinctual, i feel it very strongly knowing that she is
> particularly want to see other people but i feel like jealousy would
> woman i am seeing is an absolutely wonderful person and i don't want
> to end things with her because of these differences yet i'm not sure
> that it can work. ideologically i think polyamory is probably
> evolutionarily more advanced than monogamy, which to my knowledge is
> an institution formed subjectively and is used as a mechanism for
> against societies brand on my morality, rethought its doctrine,
> discovered my own moral beliefs, and worked to apply them in my life,
> my moral beliefs over my emotional self and embrace this new type of
> relationship, or if this would be a mistake in that i may not be ready
> for it. i'm not sure what i'm hoping for by posting this ive never
> posted here before. if you have some insight on the situation i will
> be greatly indebted.
>
Evolution has nothing to do with which is better. Perhaps invite one of
her girlfriends to spend the night with both of you. Worked with us.
jimbat
Seb
explore a my potential for polyamorous lifestyle. I really want to face
the demons of jealousy and insecurities that have plagued my previous
monogamous relationships. I've always felt that polyamory is a more
realistic and honest lifestyle, but never really encountered the
possibility of actually explore it. I'm very nervous about it, and would
appreciate hearing from others here their experiences as they got into the
lifestyle, and what made you stick with it or realize it wasn't for you.
Thanks!
--
Seb
Seb
ChickPea <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Seb) wrote in
> <874pgbg...@patagonia.sebmags.homelinux.org>::
> Welcome!
Thanks!
[...]
> Just one thing: the "L-word" doesn't play well here. "I have a life, not
> a lifestyle" is something you may hear.
> There's a lot of resistance to the suggestion that there's only one way
> to do poly - One True Wayers sometimes pop up in here and tell us all
> what we should be doing- they generally retreat, smouldering.
> But do stay- this is a fine online community, with a lot of practical
> experience.
Please be patient, this is completely new to me, and may be using language
that is not intended to offend because I'm not familiar with all the
connotations that others with experience are aware of here. I am
genuinely interested and really want to test whether this works for me,
and would appreciate any followups to my query.
--
Seb
Pat Kight
I see Chickpea already mentioned the whole "lifestyle" thing, so that's
covered. (-:
For the rest: I'm not sure there's anything about polyamory that makes
it inherently more "realistic and honest," or otherwise better, than
monogamy - *except* for those who are inclined that way. Having
relationships with other people can be hard, and poly relationships are
no exception; if anything, the added complexity of dividing one's time
and attention among multiple people can create new and exciting paths to
disaster. (And if you haven't already discovered http://polyamory.org, I
can strongly recommend the resources there, especially the "How to F*ck
Up" FAQ).
Anyone who comes to polyamory thinking it will cure all the problems
they've had with relationships is dreaming. I also have my doubts about
the prospects for people who start from a position of "Hey, multiple
partners, that sounds like fun. Where can I get me some of those?"
I have the feeling that if you asked most of the regulars here, they'd
tell you they came to poly by one of several routes:
* They had an early sense that One Twue Love wasn't a realistic model
for them, hung out with others who felt the same way and got involved
with some of them in much the same way anyone gets involved with anyone,
by getting to know them, talking a lot and seeing how things developed
over time.
* They found themselves in love with more than one person, and made an
effort to figure out a way to make that *work* instead of sneaking
around and cheating.
* Like me, they fell in love with someone who was up-front about being
polyamorous, and decided to go ahead and pursue a relationship knowing
full well that they wouldn't be their partner's only partner. And dealt
with the stumbling blocks one by one, as they came up.
What I *haven't* seen much evidence of are successful poly relationships
that started out with one person deciding unilaterally to be poly, and
then trying to persuade their existing partner to do that. We hear from
such people, and from their monogamous partners, fairly often here, but
it's usually when they're in crisis and looking for validation of their
own positions. They post, they get honest responses (that don't
necessarily amount to "gee, you're right, poor you"), they go away.
What makes the difference between working poly relationships and ones
that crash and burn, as far as I can tell, are the same things that make
any other kind of relationship work: Honest communication, mutual
respect, flexibility, loving kindness and keeping in mind that nobody in
a relationship gets their way all the time, but everybody should get
their way at least some of the time. That, and a good scheduler.
Whoa. This got long; I blame getting up way too early on a Sunday
morning with a cranky sciatic nerve. Ask questions, and understand that
what answers you get will necessarily be filtered through our own
experiences. None of us has The Answer, but we're all pretty willing to
talk about our own lives.
And welcome.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Seb
Thank you so much for your extensive reply!
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:31:42 -0700,
Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
[...]
> I see Chickpea already mentioned the whole "lifestyle" thing, so that's
> covered. (-:
> For the rest: I'm not sure there's anything about polyamory that makes
> it inherently more "realistic and honest," or otherwise better, than
> monogamy - *except* for those who are inclined that way. Having
> relationships with other people can be hard, and poly relationships are
> no exception; if anything, the added complexity of dividing one's time
> and attention among multiple people can create new and exciting paths to
> disaster. (And if you haven't already discovered http://polyamory.org, I
> can strongly recommend the resources there, especially the "How to F*ck
> Up" FAQ).
Yes, I've read those, and in fact almost everything in the "How to F*ck
Up" FAQ are things I already know from my (up to now) monogamous
experience. Having also read all the philosophical background to
polyamory (haven't yet read all the books, but a lot of the online
material), I realized that this arrangement is what has slowly been
sketched out in my head over my serial-monogamous life. Fidelity is such
a big issue there, and having been on both sides of the fence, I'm fairly
convinced that it's not a good model to follow on the long term. Sooner
or later, one or both partners eventually realize that the other cannot
fulfill every single one of their needs/wants. IMO, that's not a good
reason to consider polyamory, unless one is mature enough to have clearly
defined what those needs/wants are, which takes a LOT of personal effort
and growth. I don't know if anybody has or can justify having considered
following a polyamorous life like this. I can't. What I do realize is
that humans are not naturally made monogamous, for purely sexual
evolutionary reasons, and our brains have coevolved to create fantastic
scenarios to manipulate us to behave sometimes monogamously, but mostly
non-monogamously. For me these forces are too strong to fight against
despite all our rationalizations, and I've decided I should try and live
accepting that and stop expecting and generating expectations of fidelity.
> Anyone who comes to polyamory thinking it will cure all the problems
> they've had with relationships is dreaming. I also have my doubts about
> the prospects for people who start from a position of "Hey, multiple
> partners, that sounds like fun. Where can I get me some of those?"
I think I'm very far from being one of those, since I know that this
choice would involve a lot of pain, but potentially a lot of growth, which
is what I'm really after. I'm also aware of the scheduling issues, and
the myriad of hardships. I don't even know if it's the right choice for
me, but I like to believe I'm strong enough to face the challenge and come
out knowing myself more deeply, regardless of whether I decide it is or is
not for me.
[...]
> * Like me, they fell in love with someone who was up-front about being
> polyamorous, and decided to go ahead and pursue a relationship knowing
> full well that they wouldn't be their partner's only partner. And dealt
> with the stumbling blocks one by one, as they came up.
> What I *haven't* seen much evidence of are successful poly relationships
> that started out with one person deciding unilaterally to be poly, and
> then trying to persuade their existing partner to do that. We hear from
> such people, and from their monogamous partners, fairly often here, but
> it's usually when they're in crisis and looking for validation of their
> own positions. They post, they get honest responses (that don't
> necessarily amount to "gee, you're right, poor you"), they go away.
> What makes the difference between working poly relationships and ones
> that crash and burn, as far as I can tell, are the same things that make
> any other kind of relationship work: Honest communication, mutual
> respect, flexibility, loving kindness and keeping in mind that nobody in
> a relationship gets their way all the time, but everybody should get
> their way at least some of the time. That, and a good scheduler.
This is of course very encouraging, because those values are extremely
important for me and have always tried my best to stick to them as closely
as possible (often not doing so has had more to do with lack of knowledge
of myself than anything else!).
Thanks again for your reply!
--
Seb
Guy W. Thomas
> In alt.polyamory, (Seb) wrote in
> <874pgbg...@patagonia.sebmags.homelinux.org>::
>
> Welcome!
>
>> appreciate hearing from others here their experiences as they got into the
>> lifestyle,
>
> lifestyle" is something you may hear.
Oh, I don't know. The first season was really good. :-)
Brooks Moses
> What I *haven't* seen much evidence of are successful poly relationships
> that started out with one person deciding unilaterally to be poly, and
> then trying to persuade their existing partner to do that. We hear from
> such people, and from their monogamous partners, fairly often here, but
> it's usually when they're in crisis and looking for validation of their
> own positions. They post, they get honest responses (that don't
> necessarily amount to "gee, you're right, poor you"), they go away.
To elaborate on this, though -- I think there's a very big difference
between "unilaterally deciding to have poly relationships" (which I
think is what you mean here), and "realizing that one is inclined
towards polyamory while in an existing relationship."
I think there's a reasonable bit of precedent for the latter case
working out successfully, from people who came to the realization/
decision that they were polyamorous in orientation, and then negotiated
with their existing partner about whether and how to adapt their
relationship to that orientation. (That's sort of a subset of the "they
found themselves in love with more than one person, and made an effort
to figure out a way to make that work" case that you mentioned as one of
the common successful situations.)
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Serene
[Note to Pat: I'm offering several counterdatapoints to your post. I
trust you won't mind, but I thought I'd say explicitly that I don't
think you've said anything incorrect here -- I just have experiences
with polyamory that don't fit the examples you've given, so I
thought I'd share them with the new folks who have recently showed
up in this thread.]
> I have the feeling that if you asked most of the regulars here, they'd
> tell you they came to poly by one of several routes:
>
> * They had an early sense that One Twue Love wasn't a realistic model
> for them, hung out with others who felt the same way and got involved
> with some of them in much the same way anyone gets involved with anyone,
> by getting to know them, talking a lot and seeing how things developed
> over time.
>
> * They found themselves in love with more than one person, and made an
> effort to figure out a way to make that *work* instead of sneaking
> around and cheating.
>
> * Like me, they fell in love with someone who was up-front about being
> polyamorous, and decided to go ahead and pursue a relationship knowing
> full well that they wouldn't be their partner's only partner. And dealt
> with the stumbling blocks one by one, as they came up.
Neither of those things was true for me, but I do think they're very
common. I had an early sense that monogamy was not for me, but I
didn't meet other people who felt that way until I had been actively
poly for many years (without having a name for that). I just let
all my partners (all of whom were essentially monogamous, and remain
so, to my knowledge) know that monogamy wasn't an option for me.
People who wanted to be with me adjusted to that. (We're not talking
a ton of people. I dated a total of three people before I met
Naked-Guy, the first poly person I knew, and the one who told me
about alt.poly.
> What I *haven't* seen much evidence of are successful poly relationships
> that started out with one person deciding unilaterally to be poly, and
> then trying to persuade their existing partner to do that. We hear from
> such people, and from their monogamous partners, fairly often here, but
> it's usually when they're in crisis and looking for validation of their
> own positions. They post, they get honest responses (that don't
> necessarily amount to "gee, you're right, poor you"), they go away.
I tried to make poly work with a monogamous partner, and it didn't
work. I was here before that relationship, and I'm still here.
People here, though, really helped me through some rough years while
it was happening.
> What makes the difference between working poly relationships and ones
> that crash and burn, as far as I can tell, are the same things that make
> any other kind of relationship work: Honest communication, mutual
> respect, flexibility, loving kindness and keeping in mind that nobody in
> a relationship gets their way all the time, but everybody should get
> their way at least some of the time. That, and a good scheduler.
All that stuff was present in my former relationship, but the pain
my partner felt because I loved other people was just insurmountable
for us. My partner didn't like feeling hurt and discarded and like I
didn't care. I didn't like feeling like the source of my partner's
pain. It was very, very hard.
>
> Whoa. This got long; I blame getting up way too early on a Sunday
> morning with a cranky sciatic nerve. Ask questions, and understand that
> what answers you get will necessarily be filtered through our own
> experiences. None of us has The Answer, but we're all pretty willing to
> talk about our own lives.
>
> And welcome.
>
Yeah, that. Welcome!
Serene
--
Spin the auto-sig generator, and she says:
"If a man would follow today, the teachings of the Old
Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly,
the teachings of the new, he would be insane." [Robert Ingersoll]
Carmiel
"Pat Kight" <kig...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:Xdqdnd6wx9NXAbna...@scnresearch.com...
> Seb wrote:
>
(snip)
> I see Chickpea already mentioned the whole "lifestyle" thing, so that's
> covered. (-:
I've never heard of a "right" way to do poly. Some people think there's a
wrong way to do it? (confused look)
(snip)
>
> * Like me, they fell in love with someone who was up-front about being
> polyamorous, and decided to go ahead and pursue a relationship knowing
> full well that they wouldn't be their partner's only partner. And dealt
> with the stumbling blocks one by one, as they came up.
(snip)
> --
> Pat Kight
> kig...@peak.org
>
I happened to come to poly in that way. I fell in love w/ the male half of
a MF who were supposedly looking for a third. While it ended up that the
triad exploded spectacularly (she did *alot* of the points in the "how to F
up" list and is no longer in either of our lives because of it) I think the
choice is one of the best I made. IF you have adults involved (and I'm
referring to maturity level here not age), it can be very satisfying
emotionally, physically, mentally, etc. I like having the option of having
another relationship, if one shows up. There is freedom in not worring
about your partner flirting with someone else. You can relax. You know
it's ok and they will still love you and be there. You don't "own" anybody
in poly. My SO isn't *mine* possessively. He's only *mine* descriptivly.
And I'm not anybody's possession either.
Stephanie
DISCLAIMER the above is only my opinion based upon my life experiences.
Yours may be different. :)
Aahz Maruch
Carmiel <s.wei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>I've never heard of a "right" way to do poly. Some people think there's a
>wrong way to do it? (confused look)
Those are two separate issues IMO. For starters, yes, some people do
think there is a Right Way to do poly; when they show up here, they tend
to lecture the rest of us.
But ridiculous as having a Right Way Poly is, I do think that there are
many wrong ways to do poly. Just look at the Fuck-Up FAQ. Of course,
most of them are also ways to do any relationship wrong.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction
listen to weather forecasts and economists?" --Kelvin Throop III
Mister J
Then again there are people who ARE deciding unilaterally to be poly and
trying to persuade their partner to do that... and then DON'T just go away.
I am one of those. I will however grant that I don't even fit that model
particularly well.
I may be something of a test case. Where the common scenario is a
unilateralist (to coin a poor word just for the sake of discussion) often
shows up already having started a relationship - having been caught
cheating, or finding themselves in love with another that their partner is
unaware of - decide to embrace poly after-the-fact. That seems to start the
unilateralist off behind the eight-ball, fighting back into a position of
trust.
My position is one where rather than being drawn to another per se, I am
moving away from my partner for various reasons and refuse to follow the
"common wisdom" that it must result in divorce. I am trying to reduce my
involvement with my partner without destroying it; to maintain it to the
extent possible while carving out some room for a more rewarding
relationship. I will grant that I haven't had a great deal of success, but
neither has it been no success, and I am not willing to give up yet. It is
proving to be a delicate dance, and the support of those here have been
instrumental to maintaining that balance so far.
So whether I am mono or poly is immaterial. I came and haven't left because
what I found here, I find valuable.
> What makes the difference between working poly relationships and ones that
> crash and burn, as far as I can tell, are the same things that make any
> other kind of relationship work: Honest communication, mutual respect,
> flexibility, loving kindness and keeping in mind that nobody in a
> relationship gets their way all the time, but everybody should get their
> way at least some of the time. That, and a good scheduler.
>
The focus here on honest communication, mutual respect, flexibility and the
rest are things I have grasped and of which I refuse to let go. I find it
important to maintain that even in the face of it not being returned. I need
it for my own self-respect.
> Whoa. This got long; I blame getting up way too early on a Sunday morning
> with a cranky sciatic nerve. Ask questions, and understand that what
> answers you get will necessarily be filtered through our own experiences.
> None of us has The Answer, but we're all pretty willing to talk about our
> own lives.
>
> And welcome.
>
> --
> Pat Kight
> kig...@peak.org
>
LJ
Kai Jones
<bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>To elaborate on this, though -- I think there's a very big difference
>between "unilaterally deciding to have poly relationships" (which I
>think is what you mean here), and "realizing that one is inclined
>towards polyamory while in an existing relationship."
>
>I think there's a reasonable bit of precedent for the latter case
>working out successfully, from people who came to the realization/
>decision that they were polyamorous in orientation, and then negotiated
>with their existing partner about whether and how to adapt their
>relationship to that orientation.
That's me! I didn't fall in love (although I did have a crush on
someone). My husband and I talked (for months) about what our
marriage is like, what we wanted it to be, and what having other
relationships might be like, before I started a relationship with the
person I had a crush on.
Stef
Seb <s...@mail.net> wrote:
>I'm very nervous about it, and would
>appreciate hearing from others here their experiences as they got into the
>lifestyle, and what made you stick with it or realize it wasn't for you.
To make a very long angsty story short and to tell it entirely from my
point of view:
I was never emotionally monogamous, and whenever I was behaviorally
monogamous I felt like I was "settling before I'd gotten 'it' out of my
system."
I developed a serious relationship with someone who was open to poly.
When we began to actually practice poly I/we had a lot of problems with
how it went down. We hadn't fully anticipated that there's a big gap
between "let's be poly" and "uh-oh, there are some behaviors I feel bad
about, and I didn't expect you would do them, and you didn't expect I'd
feel bad about them."
Things got so bad that we declared the relationship temporarily
monogamous (not very nice for our other partners, I'm sorry to say), and
I was tempted to make this permanent. But my partner wasn't sure that
would work for zir in the long run. And when I was able to think clearly
I realized it wouldn't work for me either, since I'd never been happy
with monogamy myself.
So then my choice was whether to try to make poly work in this
relationship, despite the trust damage that had occurred, or to end this
relationship and try to make poly work with other people in the future.
The relationship had a lot going for it despite the problems, so I/we
figured we might as well try the first option first. It worked. (With a
lot of help from this newsgroup, friends, self-help books, and a
relationship counselor.)
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
"Who decides that the workday is from nine to five instead of from
eleven to four? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee
this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls
the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently
around us?... I'm with Them. Same group, different department."
-- "Z'ha'dum," Babylon 5
Steve Pope
<bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>To elaborate on this, though -- I think there's a very big difference
>between "unilaterally deciding to have poly relationships" (which I
>think is what you mean here), and "realizing that one is inclined
>towards polyamory while in an existing relationship."
>I think there's a reasonable bit of precedent for the latter case
>working out successfully, from people who came to the realization/
>decision that they were polyamorous in orientation, and then negotiated
Is there also precedent for this happening without the "poly is
an orientation" belief system?
I've never adhered to that belief but then I've never been in
an agreed-upon monogamous relationship either.
Steve
Lane
> My position is one where rather than being drawn to another per se, I am
> moving away from my partner for various reasons and refuse to follow the
> "common wisdom" that it must result in divorce. I am trying to reduce my
> involvement with my partner without destroying it; to maintain it to the
> extent possible while carving out some room for a more rewarding
> relationship. I will grant that I haven't had a great deal of success, but
> neither has it been no success, and I am not willing to give up yet. It is
> proving to be a delicate dance, and the support of those here have been
> instrumental to maintaining that balance so far.
I am in a very similar position. When things started to go awry with
M, my first impulse was to call it off. I knew, had always known, that
he would not be "the one," but eventually got to a place where that
fact bothered me enough that I knew I needed to move on. When, as I
wrote a few months ago, we realized that there was still something of
what we have that we both value, even as I am aware that I need
something else in my life, we tried a different approach: trying to
keep, exactly that which we value about each other without trying to
force more into it than is there.
It has been hard for us as well, and I frankly can not predict, yet,
whether we will be able to salvage anything beyond friendship (if even
that), but I we have devinitely both grown for the effort.
And like Mister J, I think I drew a lot on the things I have learned
reading all of you in this group and think I would not have gotten
nearly this far with it had I not had the benefit of that resource.
I will write more on this topic soon. As a tease, I am planning on a
brief visit with my ex over the next couple of days and I am really
looking forward to it. It should go a long way towards helping me sort
out what I want to do, relationship-wise, over the next few months.
Lane
Lane
> Brooks Moses
>
> <bmoses-nos...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >To elaborate on this, though -- I think there's a very big difference
> >between "unilaterally deciding to have poly relationships" (which I
> >think is what you mean here), and "realizing that one is inclined
> >towards polyamory while in an existing relationship."
> >I think there's a reasonable bit of precedent for the latter case
> >working out successfully, from people who came to the realization/
> >decision that they were polyamorous in orientation, and then negotiated
>
> Is there also precedent for this happening without the "poly is
> an orientation" belief system?
I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. Is this along the same
lines as Gore Vidal's denial of the existence of sexual orientation?
Lane
Steve Pope
>On Oct 29, 3:52 pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> Brooks Moses
>> >To elaborate on this, though -- I think there's a very big difference
>> >between "unilaterally deciding to have poly relationships" (which I
>> >think is what you mean here), and "realizing that one is inclined
>> >towards polyamory while in an existing relationship."
>> >I think there's a reasonable bit of precedent for the latter case
>> >working out successfully, from people who came to the realization/
>> >decision that they were polyamorous in orientation, and then negotiated
>> Is there also precedent for this happening without the "poly is
>> an orientation" belief system?
>I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. Is this along the same
>lines as Gore Vidal's denial of the existence of sexual orientation?
Dunno; I'm unfamiliar with Vidal's views, although I definitely don't
deny the existence of sexual orientation.
And it wasn't an objection, just a question, coupled with an
observation that we hear about "poly orientation" primarily
from people who are having, or have had, or are planning, a
transition from non-poly behavior to poly behavior.
Steve
Lane
Not to be argumentative, since you've already said that you didn't
have an objection, but I would point out that I once had a transition
from straight behavior to gay behavior. That fact is, in my mind,
independent of my orientation.
Lane
Steve Pope
I'm interested in hearing about theories of poly oritnetation,
which is why I asked my question in the first place, but simply
alluding to sexual orientation as an analogy does not say
much to me.
Steve
Stef
I'm not Steve or Gore Vidal, but I do have a sexual orientation and I
don't have an orientation related to how many simultaneous love
interests or relationships I want. I know a lot of people who
consider themselves to have a poly orientation, and I'm sure they do.
I'm just not one of them.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
There is always an easy solution to every human problem --
neat, plausible, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
Serene
> And it wasn't an objection, just a question, coupled with an
> observation that we hear about "poly orientation" primarily
> from people who are having, or have had, or are planning, a
> transition from non-poly behavior to poly behavior.
My view is that poly is my orientation, and I have never been in a
non-poly situation in my life. My view is also that poly is, for
some people, not an orientation, but a choice, and for other people
it's just one of several valid options.
Serene
--
Spin the auto-sig generator, and she says:
"All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand." -- Anon.
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> And it wasn't an objection, just a question, coupled with an
>> observation that we hear about "poly orientation" primarily
>> from people who are having, or have had, or are planning, a
>> transition from non-poly behavior to poly behavior.
>My view is that poly is my orientation, and I have never been in a
>non-poly situation in my life. My view is also that poly is, for
>some people, not an orientation, but a choice, and for other people
>it's just one of several valid options.
Cool.
I don't view myself as having a poly orientation, despite the
fact that like you I have not been in a non-poly situation. The
reasons I don't view it as an orientation for myself are that
I don't consider myself fundamentally different from other people
for being poly; and I know it to be a conscious decision that
I haven't entered into any agreed-upon monogamous relationships.
(Or perhaps "series of decisions", as there have been several
points in my life where I theoretically could have taken such
a turn.)
Steve
Carmiel
"Aahz Maruch" <aa...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:fg4kop$c1o$1...@panix3.panix.com...
Sounds like I could've worded that better...
I agree w/ the F-up FAQ as the 'wrong way' to do poly, or any realationship
whatsoever. I was trying to take the logical conclusion that if someone
pops up and says it must be done the way they say it must be done, then any
other way, regardless of whether it works or not for the parties involved,
*must* be the 'wrong way' to do it. I find that ridiculous.
Did that make my thought a little clearer? Or did I just make it worse?
: ]
Stephanie
Pat Kight
> So whether I am mono or poly is immaterial. I came and haven't left because
> what I found here, I find valuable.
Exactly. On all counts.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
David Weinshenker
> I don't view myself as having a poly orientation, despite the
> fact that like you I have not been in a non-poly situation. The
> reasons I don't view it as an orientation for myself are that
> I don't consider myself fundamentally different from other people
> for being poly; and I know it to be a conscious decision that
> I haven't entered into any agreed-upon monogamous relationships.
So (just word-usage-geeking here...) you would reserve "orientation"
for something about which you considered yourself "fundamentally
different from other people", and that wasn't a "conscious decision"?
-dave w
Aahz Maruch
Carmiel <s.wei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Aahz Maruch" <aa...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:fg4kop$c1o$1...@panix3.panix.com...
>> In article <Bf-dnUwfNtPT6rja...@comcast.com>,
>> Carmiel <s.wei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I've never heard of a "right" way to do poly. Some people think there's a
>>>wrong way to do it? (confused look)
>>
>> Those are two separate issues IMO. For starters, yes, some people do
>> think there is a Right Way to do poly; when they show up here, they tend
>> to lecture the rest of us.
>>
>> But ridiculous as having a Right Way Poly is, I do think that there are
>> many wrong ways to do poly. Just look at the Fuck-Up FAQ. Of course,
>> most of them are also ways to do any relationship wrong.
>
>I agree w/ the F-up FAQ as the 'wrong way' to do poly, or any realationship
>whatsoever. I was trying to take the logical conclusion that if someone
>pops up and says it must be done the way they say it must be done, then any
>other way, regardless of whether it works or not for the parties involved,
>*must* be the 'wrong way' to do it. I find that ridiculous.
>
>Did that make my thought a little clearer? Or did I just make it worse?
> : ]
Oh, I knew what you meant, I was just nitpicking. ;-)
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
The way I use the word orientation, the answer to this question
is for the most part, yes. I would not completely rule out the
possibility that someone may develop or alter an orientation
later in life, possibly as part of a conscious process, but it is
characteristic of orientations that they either developed early in life
(childhood or infacy), or are possibly innate, with little
conscious input from the individual involved.
I further believe that if a form of orientation is to be considered
fact as opposed to conjecture, there has to be some evidence of
how it developed. This is why I believe sexual orientations exist;
while there is a lot that isn't known about human sexuality it
is (to me) abundantly clear that the human personality undergoes sexual
development, much of it in childhood, and that one of the outcomes
of this is the spectrum of sexual orientations exhibited by adults.
By contrast the main reason I see a polyamory vs. non-polyamory
orientation as conjectural is I do not see any developmental evidence
for this, nor do I see evidence it is innate.
That is the way I use the word. Different people may use it
differently, and I have no problem with that if they're applying
their own terminology to themselves.
Steve
Serene
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> I don't view myself as having a poly orientation, despite the
>>> fact that like you I have not been in a non-poly situation. The
>>> reasons I don't view it as an orientation for myself are that
>>> I don't consider myself fundamentally different from other people
>>> for being poly; and I know it to be a conscious decision that
>>> I haven't entered into any agreed-upon monogamous relationships.
>
>> So (just word-usage-geeking here...) you would reserve "orientation"
>> for something about which you considered yourself "fundamentally
>> different from other people", and that wasn't a "conscious decision"?
>
> The way I use the word orientation, the answer to this question
> is for the most part, yes. I would not completely rule out the
> possibility that someone may develop or alter an orientation
> later in life, possibly as part of a conscious process, but it is
> characteristic of orientations that they either developed early in life
> (childhood or infacy), or are possibly innate, with little
> conscious input from the individual involved.
Hm. Then my sexual orientation isn't an orientation at all.
Serene
--
Spin the auto-sig generator, and she says:
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
Thomas Jefferson (source: Unknown)
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> The way I use the word orientation, the answer to this question
>> is for the most part, yes. I would not completely rule out the
>> possibility that someone may develop or alter an orientation
>> later in life, possibly as part of a conscious process, but it is
>> characteristic of orientations that they either developed early in life
>> (childhood or infacy), or are possibly innate, with little
>> conscious input from the individual involved.
>Hm. Then my sexual orientation isn't an orientation at all.
I did say "I will not rule out the possibility....".
S.
Serene
And then negated that possibility with the language that followed,
beginning with "but". Not a big deal, though. I certainly don't
base my views about my orientation on what your perception of the
word is.
Serene
--
Spin the auto-sig generator, and she says:
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need
to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of,
even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." [Richard Dawkins]
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Serene <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>>> The way I use the word orientation, the answer to this question
>>>> is for the most part, yes. I would not completely rule out the
>>>> possibility that someone may develop or alter an orientation
>>>> later in life, possibly as part of a conscious process, but it is
>>>> characteristic of orientations that they either developed early in life
>>>> (childhood or infacy), or are possibly innate, with little
>>>> conscious input from the individual involved.
>>> Hm. Then my sexual orientation isn't an orientation at all.
>> I did say "I will not rule out the possibility....".
>And then negated that possibility with the language that followed,
>beginning with "but".
No, I didn't in any fashion "negate that possibility" with
the subsequent phrase. I made it very clear that I was
not making an unqualified statement.
> I certainly don't
> base my views about my orientation on what your perception of the
> word is.
And with this you're trying to personalize the issue instead
of sticking with the topic.
BTW there are people who, as you suggest, believe that sexual
orientation does not exist, but I am not among those people.
Steve
Serene
> Serene <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> Serene <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>
>>>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>>>> The way I use the word orientation, the answer to this question
>>>>> is for the most part, yes. I would not completely rule out the
>>>>> possibility that someone may develop or alter an orientation
>>>>> later in life, possibly as part of a conscious process, but it is
>>>>> characteristic of orientations that they either developed early in life
>>>>> (childhood or infacy), or are possibly innate, with little
>>>>> conscious input from the individual involved.
>
>>>> Hm. Then my sexual orientation isn't an orientation at all.
>
>>> I did say "I will not rule out the possibility....".
>
>> And then negated that possibility with the language that followed,
>> beginning with "but".
>
> No, I didn't in any fashion "negate that possibility" with
> the subsequent phrase. I made it very clear that I was
> not making an unqualified statement.
I got that. I'm just saying that your language read like "It's
possible that not-A, but A."
>
>> I certainly don't
>> base my views about my orientation on what your perception of the
>> word is.
>
> And with this you're trying to personalize the issue instead
> of sticking with the topic.
I think you read more into my statement than I intended. I just
meant to say that I wasn't taking your definitions personally.
Serene
--
Spin the auto-sig generator, and she says:
"Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote,
invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the
Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of
our personal lives." -- Craig Carter
Brooks Moses
> Brooks Moses
> <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> To elaborate on this, though -- I think there's a very big difference
>> between "unilaterally deciding to have poly relationships" (which I
>> think is what you mean here), and "realizing that one is inclined
>> towards polyamory while in an existing relationship."
>
>> I think there's a reasonable bit of precedent for the latter case
>> working out successfully, from people who came to the realization/
>> decision that they were polyamorous in orientation, and then negotiated
>
> Is there also precedent for this happening without the "poly is
> an orientation" belief system?
Yeah -- "inclined towards polyamory" is much more what I mean than
"orientation", really. All I mean there is someone coming to a point in
which they would say that having a polyamorous relationship is something
they want (and is important to them).
Insofar as I meant "orientation", I only meant the very broad case I
describe below -- they find that attractions to people are, for them,
not mutually exclusive.
> I've never adhered to that belief but then I've never been in
> an agreed-upon monogamous relationship either.
Well, I think there's a vast range of things that "polyamorous
orientation" could mean, so I am wary of making general statements about
my belief in it.
Certainly I think that there are some people who, when in a happy and
fulfilling relationship with someone, do not feel attraction to other
people. And there are some people who, when in such a situation, find
themselves just as attracted to other people as they were before, and
were they to pursue those other attractions, would find that their
feelings towards their partner were not diminished by them.
That strikes me as an "orientation" in some sense. I think the former
is roughly a "monogamous" orientation (but maybe not the only one).
However, I don't think the latter is a "polyamorous" orientation,
really; it's rather broader than that.
I also think that, in the latter camp, there are some people who would
be perfectly happy to have just one relationship and not pursue the
other attractions, and some people who would find that stifling and
uncomfortable.
(Warning: Near-tautological meaningless statement follows.)
For some people, that sense of "stifling and uncomfortable" is probably
sufficiently innate that it is effectively an orientation. Whereas, for
some other people, it probably isn't anywhere near that.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Brooks Moses
> I'm not Steve or Gore Vidal, but I do have a sexual orientation and I
> don't have an orientation related to how many simultaneous love
> interests or relationships I want. I know a lot of people who
> consider themselves to have a poly orientation, and I'm sure they do.
> I'm just not one of them.
Indeed. And that's the other definition of "poly orientiation" than
what I was talking about in my other post -- an orientation towards
having a specific number of partners.
That seems so nearly unworkable in the pure form to me as to be quite
unlikely to be very common in that form; heterosexuality as an
orientation means that one has no desire for a non-heterosexual
relationship. An orientation towards multiple relationships in that
manner would mean that one would have no desire to be in a single
relationship. Since relationships usually come along one at a time,
that's ... problematic.
(In a weaker sense -- where one has a desire for single relationships,
but finds them unfulfilling until there are more than one of them -- it
seems entirely plausible, and the sort of thing that one would expect
some people to have, people tending to have a wide range of desires and
needs and quirks. But I would seriously doubt that that describes a
majority of polyamorous people.)
Brooks Moses
> I don't view myself as having a poly orientation, despite the
> fact that like you I have not been in a non-poly situation. The
> reasons I don't view it as an orientation for myself are that
> I don't consider myself fundamentally different from other people
> for being poly; and I know it to be a conscious decision that
> I haven't entered into any agreed-upon monogamous relationships.
Huh. I don't consider myself fundamentally different from homosexual
men for being heterosexual, either, though. It's ... I'm attracted to
women, they're attracted to men; that seems a relatively minor detail as
human differences go.
Well, I guess that depends on how one defines "fundamental". I consider
it something that's rather deeply-rooted in my personality and unlikely
to change, which I suppose fits some definitions of fundamental despite
it being a minor detail.
(But there are people whose "when I am in a relationship, I'm not
romantically attracted to other people" feelings are just as
deeply-rooted and unlikely to change....)
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> I don't view myself as having a poly orientation, despite the
>> fact that like you I have not been in a non-poly situation. The
>> reasons I don't view it as an orientation for myself are that
>> I don't consider myself fundamentally different from other people
>> for being poly; and I know it to be a conscious decision that
>> I haven't entered into any agreed-upon monogamous relationships.
>Huh. I don't consider myself fundamentally different from homosexual
>men for being heterosexual, either, though. It's ... I'm attracted to
>women, they're attracted to men; that seems a relatively minor detail as
>human differences go.
>Well, I guess that depends on how one defines "fundamental".
"Fundamental" isn't the best word here. I probably would change
that to "constitutional", suggesting there is something about a
person's internal make-up that leads to a preference or behavior.
"Fundamental" is a bit vague.
Steve
Aahz Maruch
In article <4728D1A7...@cits1.stanford.edu>,
What I would say is that an orientation toward polyamory functions a lot
like claustrophobia, based on my reactions and what other people describe
as their reactions. That is, a monogamous relationship feels confining
and unnatural, which likely is not entirely dissimilar from the way a
homosexual person feels when forced by society into a sexual/romantic
relationship with a MOTOS.
Brooks Moses
> I further believe that if a form of orientation is to be considered
> fact as opposed to conjecture, there has to be some evidence of
> how it developed. This is why I believe sexual orientations exist;
> while there is a lot that isn't known about human sexuality it
> is (to me) abundantly clear that the human personality undergoes sexual
> development, much of it in childhood, and that one of the outcomes
> of this is the spectrum of sexual orientations exhibited by adults.
>
> By contrast the main reason I see a polyamory vs. non-polyamory
> orientation as conjectural is I do not see any developmental evidence
> for this, nor do I see evidence it is innate.
Well, one bigtime relevant thing is that polyamory is not a _sexual_
orientation as such, but a relationship orientation, and so one wouldn't
expect to see evidence of it in sexual development.
I expect that if you started looking at early romantic relationship
development in young people (which, so far as I know, is not something
covered in nearly as much research and observation as sexual
development), you'd see some rather interesting things.
Kathryn Burlingham
>
> My view is that poly is my orientation, and I have never been in a
> non-poly situation in my life. My view is also that poly is, for some
> people, not an orientation, but a choice, and for other people it's just
> one of several valid options.
That last one describes me. It's a way of arranging one's
relationship(s). Depends on circumstance and the people involved, for
me. I could see myself happy any number of ways.
Brooks Moses
>> men for being heterosexual, either, though. It's ... I'm attracted to
>> women, they're attracted to men; that seems a relatively minor detail as
>> human differences go.
>
>> Well, I guess that depends on how one defines "fundamental".
>
> "Fundamental" isn't the best word here. I probably would change
> that to "constitutional", suggesting there is something about a
> person's internal make-up that leads to a preference or behavior.
> "Fundamental" is a bit vague.
Yeah. The thing is, there are a lot of trivial constitutional
differences. :)
And I do think there are some people who, for constitutional reasons,
will be unhappy with monogamous relationships. (And some who will be
unhappy with polyamorous relationships.)
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> I further believe that if a form of orientation is to be considered
>> fact as opposed to conjecture, there has to be some evidence of
>> how it developed. This is why I believe sexual orientations exist;
>> while there is a lot that isn't known about human sexuality it
>> is (to me) abundantly clear that the human personality undergoes sexual
>> development, much of it in childhood, and that one of the outcomes
>> of this is the spectrum of sexual orientations exhibited by adults.
>> By contrast the main reason I see a polyamory vs. non-polyamory
>> orientation as conjectural is I do not see any developmental evidence
>> for this, nor do I see evidence it is innate.
>Well, one bigtime relevant thing is that polyamory is not a _sexual_
>orientation as such, but a relationship orientation, and so one wouldn't
>expect to see evidence of it in sexual development.
Certainly. But there are things other than sexual orientation
that I still consider to be orientations in the sense I describe
above. An example would be a person's basic communication paradigms
(i.e. Aspergers-like communications vs. non-Aspergers). This
is something that is formed early in life and/or is partly innate,
and changes at most moderately in adulthood.
>I expect that if you started looking at early romantic relationship
>development in young people (which, so far as I know, is not something
>covered in nearly as much research and observation as sexual
>development), you'd see some rather interesting things.
I agree you probably would. (For one thing, not all young people
have romantic relationships.)
Steve
Aqua
> Steve Pope wrote:
>> I further believe that if a form of orientation is to be considered
>> fact as opposed to conjecture, there has to be some evidence of
>> how it developed. This is why I believe sexual orientations exist;
>> while there is a lot that isn't known about human sexuality it
>> is (to me) abundantly clear that the human personality undergoes sexual
>> development, much of it in childhood, and that one of the outcomes
>> of this is the spectrum of sexual orientations exhibited by adults.
>>
>> By contrast the main reason I see a polyamory vs. non-polyamory
>> orientation as conjectural is I do not see any developmental evidence
>> for this, nor do I see evidence it is innate.
>
> Well, one bigtime relevant thing is that polyamory is not a _sexual_
> orientation as such, but a relationship orientation, and so one wouldn't
> expect to see evidence of it in sexual development.
I suspect that would have to vary from person to person. Certainly in
the "opposite" case there are people who are (serially) monogamous as a
sexual orientation.
Aqua
Aqua
> Stef wrote:
>> I'm not Steve or Gore Vidal, but I do have a sexual orientation and I
>> don't have an orientation related to how many simultaneous love
>> interests or relationships I want. I know a lot of people who
>> consider themselves to have a poly orientation, and I'm sure they do.
>> I'm just not one of them.
>
> Indeed. And that's the other definition of "poly orientiation" than
> what I was talking about in my other post -- an orientation towards
> having a specific number of partners.
>
> That seems so nearly unworkable in the pure form to me as to be quite
> unlikely to be very common in that form; heterosexuality as an
> orientation means that one has no desire for a non-heterosexual
> relationship. An orientation towards multiple relationships in that
> manner would mean that one would have no desire to be in a single
> relationship. Since relationships usually come along one at a time,
> that's ... problematic.
I can imagine, and have experienced something vaguely in the direction
of, knowing someone whom one is only interested in being in a
relationship with if it's part of a larger arrangement. And we've
certainly had examples of people who will only get involved with people
who are already in relationships, although it's not clear how much that
could be considered "orientation" and how much "preference based on
experience" - although there's definitely a point at which "preference
based on experience" can start to feel like orientation.
Aqua
Chris Malcolm
> In article <4728D1A7...@cits1.stanford.edu>,
> Brooks Moses <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>Stef wrote:
>>> I'm not Steve or Gore Vidal, but I do have a sexual orientation and I
>>> don't have an orientation related to how many simultaneous love
>>> interests or relationships I want. I know a lot of people who
>>> consider themselves to have a poly orientation, and I'm sure they do.
>>> I'm just not one of them.
>>Indeed. And that's the other definition of "poly orientiation" than
>>what I was talking about in my other post -- an orientation towards
>>having a specific number of partners.
>>(In a weaker sense -- where one has a desire for single relationships,
>>but finds them unfulfilling until there are more than one of them -- it
>>seems entirely plausible, and the sort of thing that one would expect
>>some people to have, people tending to have a wide range of desires and
>>needs and quirks. But I would seriously doubt that that describes a
>>majority of polyamorous people.)
> What I would say is that an orientation toward polyamory functions a lot
> like claustrophobia, based on my reactions and what other people describe
> as their reactions. That is, a monogamous relationship feels confining
> and unnatural, which likely is not entirely dissimilar from the way a
> homosexual person feels when forced by society into a sexual/romantic
> relationship with a MOTOS.
I know a number of people who find monogamous relationships very
confining and unnatural. What they've decided to do about that is to
have lots of secret affairs. So if there were a orientation towards
polyamory, it would have to be more complex than the drives which lead
so many just to cheat on their partners.
What about the children of polyamorists? Is there any evidence of it
being heritable? Any polyamorous twins out there?
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Ryk
<5otmljF...@mid.individual.net>
Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Aahz Maruch <aa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> What I would say is that an orientation toward polyamory functions a lot
>> like claustrophobia, based on my reactions and what other people describe
>> as their reactions. That is, a monogamous relationship feels confining
>> and unnatural, which likely is not entirely dissimilar from the way a
>> homosexual person feels when forced by society into a sexual/romantic
>> relationship with a MOTOS.
>
>I know a number of people who find monogamous relationships very
>confining and unnatural. What they've decided to do about that is to
>have lots of secret affairs. So if there were a orientation towards
>polyamory, it would have to be more complex than the drives which lead
>so many just to cheat on their partners.
>
>What about the children of polyamorists? Is there any evidence of it
>being heritable? Any polyamorous twins out there?
I won't say anything about my kids.
It wouldn't have to be that complex. At least not as a "capacity". It
would have to include a continuing interest in other potential
partners even while paired and a personal commitment to honesty. I
have no idea if either of those are heritable.
From a more cynical standpoint, if one started out with an interest in
multiple partners (which seems common), an inability to lie
convincingly, and the intelligence to recognize the situation...
Ryk
Aahz Maruch
What makes you say that? We live in a monogamous society with a
"nudgenudgewinkwink" attitude toward cheating in some respect; I believe
that for the vast majority of cheaters, they're doing it simply because
no other options occur to them as realistic. And, of course, even if one
has an orientation toward polyamory, that doesn't mean one doesn't also
have a taste for cheating (which some people do).
Stef
>> I'm not Steve or Gore Vidal, but I do have a sexual orientation and I
>> don't have an orientation related to how many simultaneous love
>> interests or relationships I want. I know a lot of people who
>> consider themselves to have a poly orientation, and I'm sure they do.
>> I'm just not one of them.
>
>Indeed. And that's the other definition of "poly orientiation" than
>what I was talking about in my other post -- an orientation towards
>having a specific number of partners.
>
>That seems so nearly unworkable in the pure form to me as to be quite
>unlikely to be very common in that form; heterosexuality as an
>orientation means that one has no desire for a non-heterosexual
>relationship.
That doesn't work for me at all. In my experience, sexual orientation is
so fundamentally about *attraction*; it makes no sense to say that
sexual orientation can be defined by what one has "no desire" toward.
I would say heterosexuality means that one has sexual attraction to
MOTOS and not to MOTSS. It's possible to have no sexual attraction at
all, or to have sexual attraction only to shoes, e.g.; neither of those
means a person is heterosexual.
My bisexuality feels like: I could no more change this than I could
transform myself into a seahorse.
My ability to feel romantic love for multiple people at a time seems
pretty fundamental, but potentially more changeable than the bisexuality.
My carrying on multiple romantic/sexual relationships openly seems like
one choice out of several that I could contentedly live with.
So inside my head they are different enough that I don't feel right
about calling them all orientations. But others' heads may vary.
--
Stef ** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Body parts have multiple uses. When I hear "the ass is just for
shitting" from true homophobes, I want to say, "The mouth is just
for eating, so shut up!" -- Sonya Trejo
Serene
> In my experience, sexual orientation is
> so fundamentally about *attraction*; it makes no sense to say that
> sexual orientation can be defined by what one has "no desire" toward.
I agree.
> I would say heterosexuality means that one has sexual attraction to
> MOTOS and not to MOTSS. It's possible to have no sexual attraction at
> all, or to have sexual attraction only to shoes, e.g.; neither of those
> means a person is heterosexual.
Yep.
>
> My bisexuality feels like: I could no more change this than I could
> transform myself into a seahorse.
Ooh, but seahorses are so purty! (I don't know if I could change my
bisexuality -- I was able to change my heterosexuality, but I'm not
sure I could close that attracted-to-women door now that it's opened.)
> My ability to feel romantic love for multiple people at a time seems
> pretty fundamental, but potentially more changeable than the bisexuality.
And it's precisely the opposite for me. I suppose I could
potentially stop finding women sexually attractive, since I didn't
for the first 25 or so years of my life, but it's hard to imagine.
However, I've been able to love more than one person at a time my
whole entire life, and it's hard to even imagine life another way.
(Not impossible to imagine. When I'm deeeeeep in NRE with someone
really perfect-for-me, I can sometimes see the rest of the world
just falling away and leaving me with this person forever. That
doesn't negate my love for my other partners, though, so it's
clearly about NRE and not inability to love multiple people at once.)
> My carrying on multiple romantic/sexual relationships openly seems like
> one choice out of several that I could contentedly live with.
>
> So inside my head they are different enough that I don't feel right
> about calling them all orientations. But others' heads may vary.
Yep. I call them both orientations when they pertain to me, but I'm
not attached to that terminology, and other people's ways of looking
at it often seem just as reasonable as mine to me.
Serene
--
Spin the auto-sig generator, and she says:
"Life goes on, even if two-headed and glowing faintly in the
dark." -- Ursula K. Le Guin
Brooks Moses
> In article <4728D1A7...@cits1.stanford.edu>,
> Brooks Moses <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> That seems so nearly unworkable in the pure form to me as to be quite
>> unlikely to be very common in that form; heterosexuality as an
>> orientation means that one has no desire for a non-heterosexual
>> relationship.
>
> That doesn't work for me at all. In my experience, sexual orientation is
> so fundamentally about *attraction*; it makes no sense to say that
> sexual orientation can be defined by what one has "no desire" toward.
>
> I would say heterosexuality means that one has sexual attraction to
> MOTOS and not to MOTSS. It's possible to have no sexual attraction at
> all, or to have sexual attraction only to shoes, e.g.; neither of those
> means a person is heterosexual.
Well, yes. I didn't mean the "no desire" phrase as the sole definition
of heterosexuality; I meant it as descriptive of the "not to MOTSS" part
of your definition.
Pat Kight
> Stef wrote:
>
>> In my experience, sexual orientation is
>> so fundamentally about *attraction*; it makes no sense to say that
>> sexual orientation can be defined by what one has "no desire" toward.
> I agree.
>
>> I would say heterosexuality means that one has sexual attraction to
>> MOTOS and not to MOTSS. It's possible to have no sexual attraction at
>> all, or to have sexual attraction only to shoes, e.g.; neither of those
>> means a person is heterosexual.
> Yep.
>> My bisexuality feels like: I could no more change this than I could
>> transform myself into a seahorse.
> Ooh, but seahorses are so purty! (I don't know if I could change my
> bisexuality -- I was able to change my heterosexuality, but I'm not sure
> I could close that attracted-to-women door now that it's opened.)
>
>> My ability to feel romantic love for multiple people at a time seems
>> pretty fundamental, but potentially more changeable than the bisexuality.
I've changed so many things others call "orientations" over my lifetime
- the gender(s) I'm attracted to, the mono/poly thing, what excites me
sexually, even some things commonly considered to be kinks or fetishes -
that I've concluded that my fundamental orientation is "flexible."
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Vicki Rosenzweig
2007 19:34:04 -0700:
>To elaborate on this, though -- I think there's a very big difference
>between "unilaterally deciding to have poly relationships" (which I
>think is what you mean here), and "realizing that one is inclined
>towards polyamory while in an existing relationship."
In a sense, I did "unilaterally" decide to have poly relationships.
I was single at the time, so it wasn't about changing an existing
relationship, but about making it clear upfront that I would neither
ask nor promise monogamy.
That, again, is different from someone in an existing monogamous
relationship saying that they intend to be poly. The negotiations
involved are different--it's not "is this an acceptable change to our
relationship, or do you consider that I've broken up with you?"
but "are you interested in a relationship of this sort?"
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
"Regret, by definition, comes too late,
Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate." --John M. Ford