Poly soul in a mono life
Zen Cat
following alt.poly on and off. The "Poly cheer or seasonal dread"
thread inspired me to write.
I'm in my mid-40s, and have been polyamorous for as long as I've
been mature enough to understand what that meant. For a while, long
ago, I lived in a true poly communal household with 5 other adults,
and it was a wonderful time. But now, I'm an old married person.
I've been married 13 years to a wonderful partner, whom I love
deeply. I would never jeopardize our marriage. But it's a strict
monogamy.
Periodically, often seasonally, my poly nature attempts to reassert
itself over my mono life, resulting in a longing which manifests
itelf as a melancholia so severe, I feel an actual physical aching
in my chest. Right now, I'm going through one of those times.
I've tried explaining polyamory (and especially polyfidelity) to my
spouse ("J") to no avail. J finds the whole thing incomprehensible
and, worse, threatening. I've tried being very gentle about
broaching the whole subject over several years, with no success. J
has noticed there is something wrong with me, but I am at a loss how
to explain without creating issues around the already stressful
holidays.
What do I do? Being poly isn't some choice I made, it's what I am.
Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom or support.
zen cat
rapie...@my-deja.com
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Greetings, all. I'm delurking for the first time after many years of
> following alt.poly on and off. The "Poly cheer or seasonal dread"
> thread inspired me to write.
>
> I'm in my mid-40s, and have been polyamorous for as long as I've
> been mature enough to understand what that meant. For a while, long
> ago, I lived in a true poly communal household with 5 other adults,
> and it was a wonderful time. But now, I'm an old married person.
> I've been married 13 years to a wonderful partner, whom I love
> deeply. I would never jeopardize our marriage. But it's a strict
> monogamy.
>
> Periodically, often seasonally, my poly nature attempts to reassert
> itself over my mono life, resulting in a longing which manifests
> itelf as a melancholia so severe, I feel an actual physical aching
> in my chest. Right now, I'm going through one of those times.
Sorry to hear that. I'm pretty blue mayself. I wrote about it in
another thread.
> I've tried explaining polyamory (and especially polyfidelity) to my
> spouse ("J") to no avail. J finds the whole thing incomprehensible
> and, worse, threatening.
I'm sure J does find it threatening if you were married on the basis of
monogamy. You need to face the fact that you made a very serious
commitment that you seem to now be unable to keep. I am not telling
you that you are a bad person or anything, I am simply pointing out the
fact that given your feelings, you should never have promised monogamy
to J, and that you need to accept that ethically J has every right to
ditch you on this issue, if you act on it.
My advise is, that if you are sure you cannot keep your commitment,
that you should admit this to J, preferably before you commit acts that
are a violation of that agreement, that you screwed up in promising
monogamy, that you do not think you can keep that promise, and ask J
what zie wants to do, and offer to let J out of the relationship with
reasonable terms (as in you are at fault, and property matters should
be settled in that light). Also make it very clear that you wish to
keep J (if you do), and ask what sort of arrangment J could accept.
I would expect a very angry reaction. I know it will be very hard for
both of you, but if you are correct that you cannot be happy and mono,
then you need to do this.
Just my opinion, I'm sure others will differ with me.
> I've tried being very gentle about
> broaching the whole subject over several years, with no success. J
> has noticed there is something wrong with me, but I am at a loss how
> to explain without creating issues around the already stressful
> holidays.
Don't do it until mid January I would say. You can stay mono for that
long huh? I was celibate with my wife for more than a year before she
left me, and didn't want to be.
> What do I do? Being poly isn't some choice I made, it's what I am.
> Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom or support.
>
> zen cat
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Owenbrau
>I'm sure J does find it threatening if you were married on the basis of
>monogamy. You need to face the fact that you made a very serious
>commitment that you seem to now be unable to keep. I am not telling
>you that you are a bad person or anything, I am simply pointing out the
>fact that given your feelings, you should never have promised monogamy
>to J, and that you need to accept that ethically J has every right to
>ditch you on this issue, if you act on it.
>
>My advise is, that if you are sure you cannot keep your commitment,
>that you should admit this to J, preferably before you commit acts that
>are a violation of that agreement, that you screwed up in promising
>monogamy, that you do not think you can keep that promise, and ask J
>what zie wants to do, and offer to let J out of the relationship with
>reasonable terms (as in you are at fault, and property matters should
>be settled in that light). Also make it very clear that you wish to
>keep J (if you do), and ask what sort of arrangment J could accept.
I was in a very similer situation, and I found myself in the position of having
promised monogamy, and not being able to keep it. I didn't handle it well, and
cheated on my wife, rationalizing that as long as I was discrete, it wouldn't
hurt the marriage, where everything else was fine. I was wrong; it did, and the
marriage wasn't. It ended badly, and I have to live the consequences of my
actions. My life is better now, but I caused too much pain getting here. If you
can't live within the rules you've agreed to, get out. You will be doing J a
favor, in the long run.
Owen
"May be going to Hell in a bucket,
but at least I'm enjoying the ride..."
Ryk
<3A45449F...@pacbell.net>
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I've tried explaining polyamory (and especially polyfidelity) to my
>spouse ("J") to no avail. J finds the whole thing incomprehensible
>and, worse, threatening. I've tried being very gentle about
>broaching the whole subject over several years, with no success. J
>has noticed there is something wrong with me, but I am at a loss how
>to explain without creating issues around the already stressful
>holidays.
Wait until after the holidays. Then talk, openly, honestly and slowly.
Sort out what you want and what she can live with, and whether there
is any basis for compromise, or some acceptable overlap. e.g. she may
be OK with strictly casual sexual flings, or with close friendships
with no sex, or....? Be prepared for the possibility that there may
not be any overlap -- then you will have to make a decision.
OTOH, she may be hearing you asking for "permission to cheat" or to
get involved with swinging. Her tune might change a little if you
deliver a different message. Have you told her about your previous
poly experience, how it worked, why you thought it was good, etc.?
Ryk
Jim Roberts
Zen Cat wrote:
[...]
>
> I've tried explaining polyamory (and especially polyfidelity) to my
> spouse ("J") to no avail. J finds the whole thing incomprehensible
> and, worse, threatening. I've tried being very gentle about
> broaching the whole subject over several years, with no success. J
> has noticed there is something wrong with me, but I am at a loss how
> to explain without creating issues around the already stressful
> holidays.
>
> What do I do? Being poly isn't some choice I made, it's what I am.
> Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom or support.
>
> zen cat
If you were really a zen cat you would know, you would know yab-yum
love. It is simple.
jimbat
Liz W
owen...@aol.com (Owenbrau) wrote:
> rapier wrote:
> >My advise is, that if you are sure you cannot keep your commitment,
> >that you should admit this to J, preferably before you commit acts that
> >are a violation of that agreement, that you screwed up in promising
> >monogamy, that you do not think you can keep that promise, and ask J
> >what zie wants to do, and offer to let J out of the relationship with
> >reasonable terms (as in you are at fault, and property matters should
> >be settled in that light). Also make it very clear that you wish to
> >keep J (if you do), and ask what sort of arrangment J could accept.
>
> I was in a very similer situation, and I found myself in the position of having
> promised monogamy, and not being able to keep it. I didn't handle it well, and
> cheated on my wife, rationalizing that as long as I was discrete, it wouldn't
> hurt the marriage, where everything else was fine. I was wrong; it did, and the
> marriage wasn't. It ended badly, and I have to live the consequences of my
> actions. My life is better now, but I caused too much pain getting here. If you
> can't live within the rules you've agreed to, get out. You will be doing J a
> favor, in the long run.
Hang on, where did you both get the idea that Zen Cat was contemplating
breaking the rules or felt he couldn't keep them? He says very clearly that
he won't do anything to jeopardise his marriage. I read him as asking for
advice on how to cope with his melancholia, given that he feels he can't
explain to his wife why he feels that way, and/or how to explain his feelings
to her more effectively.
Liz
--
"It's like looking down a well at a can full of worms" - GCW
Liz W
> following alt.poly on and off. The "Poly cheer or seasonal dread"
> thread inspired me to write.
Welcome to alt.poly!
> Periodically, often seasonally, my poly nature attempts to reassert
> itself over my mono life, resulting in a longing which manifests
> itelf as a melancholia so severe, I feel an actual physical aching
> in my chest. Right now, I'm going through one of those times.
>
> I've tried explaining polyamory (and especially polyfidelity) to my
> spouse ("J") to no avail. J finds the whole thing incomprehensible
> and, worse, threatening. I've tried being very gentle about
> broaching the whole subject over several years, with no success. J
> has noticed there is something wrong with me, but I am at a loss how
> to explain without creating issues around the already stressful
> holidays.
>
> What do I do? Being poly isn't some choice I made, it's what I am.
> Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom or support.
Is your priority to get J to change her mind about polyamory, or simply to
have her understand why you're feeling depressed?
If the latter, I think it would be a good idea to tell her, despite the
stress of the holidays. Since she's already noticed something's wrong, she
will probably be trying to figure out what it is, and her imagination may
come up with far worse possibilities than the truth. If you decide to tell
her, though, I think it would help if you could make it very clear that
you're not intending to act on you feelings and just want her to understand
what's making you feel the way you do. That's why I think it makes a
difference whether your goal really is just better understanding, or whether
you are still hoping to negotiate a more open relationship.
If your aim is to get J to feel more comfortable with polyamory and negotiate
a different relationship style, I agree it would probably be better to wait
for a less stressful time. In that case it might be a good idea to say
something to J now along the lines of "I know you've noticed I'm feeling down
at the moment. I wanted to reassure you that it isn't because of anything
you've done. I'll be ready to talk about it in a little while, but not just
yet. I hope that's okay."
I'm not sure what advice to offer on explaining poly when you do eventually
broach the subject, since I don't know what you've tried in the past. I
think beginning with an absolute promise that you won't do anything without
her consent might help, and it sounds from your post as though that's a
promise you could honestly make. After that, I don't know. Have you tried
showing her the alt.poly FAQ?
Best wishes whatever you decide
rapie...@my-deja.com
From what he said after the bit about never doing anything to jepardise
his marriage. In any case his repeatadly bringing up the subject with
his S/O and being sad about it *does* jepordize his marrage to J.
He is hiding his feelings, and she will sense that, and that puts a
wedge between them.
> He says very clearly that
> he won't do anything to jeopardise his marriage.
He already has, because he was not 100% honest with J about his poly
nature at the start. I agree that he *wants* to keep J, but doing it
by deliberate deception is not a way to be happy together.
> I read him as asking for
> advice on how to cope with his melancholia, given that he feels he
> can't
> explain to his wife why he feels that way, and/or how to explain his
>feelings
> to her more effectively.
IMHO he feels bad because 1)he is being dishonest with J with whom he
is very much in love, 2)because he feels caged.
Also IMHO both of these situations are of his own making, and the only
real resolution is to be honest with himself and J. That does not mean
he *must* become actively poly, it does mean he should be 100% honest
with himself and J.
If he can stand being mono with J, he should tell J 100% about his
feelings so that she will understand his sadness.
If he cannot, he should do what I outlined in my previous post, but
shutting J out of his feelings is a road to disaster IMHO.
R
Michael Rosen
"Zen Cat" <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3A45449F...@pacbell.net...
> Greetings, all. I'm delurking for the first time after many years of
> following alt.poly on and off. The "Poly cheer or seasonal dread"
> thread inspired me to write.
Welcome to alt.poly! I could probably get away with snipping everything
else you wrote, but I'll leave it in for fast reference purposes. I just
have one question.
When I read your post, I noticed you took some care not to reveal your
gender or your spouse's; yet all the other replies you've received assumed
you are male and your spouse female.
Should this assumption be maintained? Reversed? Or should we just butt out
and keep it gender-neutral? (You said "married", so I mentally ruled out
non-het relationships.)
> I'm in my mid-40s, and have been polyamorous for as long as I've
> been mature enough to understand what that meant. For a while, long
> ago, I lived in a true poly communal household with 5 other adults,
> and it was a wonderful time. But now, I'm an old married person.
> I've been married 13 years to a wonderful partner, whom I love
> deeply. I would never jeopardize our marriage. But it's a strict
> monogamy.
>
> Periodically, often seasonally, my poly nature attempts to reassert
> itself over my mono life, resulting in a longing which manifests
> itelf as a melancholia so severe, I feel an actual physical aching
> in my chest. Right now, I'm going through one of those times.
>
> I've tried explaining polyamory (and especially polyfidelity) to my
> spouse ("J") to no avail. J finds the whole thing incomprehensible
> and, worse, threatening. I've tried being very gentle about
> broaching the whole subject over several years, with no success. J
> has noticed there is something wrong with me, but I am at a loss how
> to explain without creating issues around the already stressful
> holidays.
>
> What do I do? Being poly isn't some choice I made, it's what I am.
> Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom or support.
>
> zen cat
>
My two cents' worth would be, see a poly-friendly counselor. A third voice
can be amazingly helpful in redirecting strong reactions into constructive
channels. The a.p website at www.polyamory.org has links to poly-friendly
professionals' lists.
Good luck, and God speed!
--
Michael Rosen, mentally thanking another a.p regular for pulling me up short
on gender assumptions, once....
"A book of verses underneath the bough,
A jug of wine, a loaf of bread -- and thou, and thou, and thou, and thou
Beside me singing in the wilderness" -- Om-m-m-mar Khay-y-y-yam
Owenbrau
>> Hang on, where did you both get the idea that Zen Cat was
>contemplating
>> breaking the rules or felt he couldn't keep them?
I was in a very similar situation myself, and I felt the same way that he does.
I found myself rationalizing actions as helping, not hurting, my marriage. I
actually believed that since I felt everything else about the marriage was
doing well (I was wrong, btw), if I excercised my non-mono nature in discrete
fashion, so as not to hurt her, I would therefore be helping my marriage, and
everyone could be happy. It is amazing the lengths you can go to in fooling
yourself. I was still miserable, because I couldn't be honest, and eventually I
couldn't do it any more.
Ryk
<925680$289$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
rapie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Also IMHO both of these situations are of his own making, and the only
>real resolution is to be honest with himself and J. That does not mean
>he *must* become actively poly, it does mean he should be 100% honest
>with himself and J.
>
>If he can stand being mono with J, he should tell J 100% about his
>feelings so that she will understand his sadness.
>
>If he cannot, he should do what I outlined in my previous post, but
>shutting J out of his feelings is a road to disaster IMHO.
There is a lot of difference between 100% honesty and shutting someone
out of your feelings. Telling one's partners about every thought that
passes through one's head is not always kind, or productive.
Ryk, just informed by his partner that this is our eighth Christmas
posting to alt.poly (zie's polishing silver and has free brain
capacity for such things ;-) )
Was that possessive and/or exclusive language? I don't own my
partners, nor do I have only one......
Zen Cat
rapie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <924dqs$jc8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> lizw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <20001223222622...@ng-mb1.aol.com>,
> > owen...@aol.com (Owenbrau) wrote:
> > > rapier wrote:
> > Hang on, where did you both get the idea that Zen Cat was
> contemplating
> > breaking the rules or felt he couldn't keep them?
>
> From what he said after the bit about never doing anything to jepardise
> his marriage. In any case his repeatadly bringing up the subject with
> his S/O and being sad about it *does* jepordize his marrage to J.
>
> He is hiding his feelings, and she will sense that, and that puts a
> wedge between them.
>
> > He says very clearly that
> > he won't do anything to jeopardise his marriage.
That's right. I can be content to some level being mono. It's just
that you only have one short life (which I'm now at the midpoint
of), so I'm hoping for more.
>
> He already has, because he was not 100% honest with J about his poly
> nature at the start. I agree that he *wants* to keep J, but doing it
> by deliberate deception is not a way to be happy together.
Actually, one of the first things I ever told J when we first met in
1983 was that I fell in love easily. J found that amusing,
especially after we fell in love! The funny part is that J
expected me to *stop* falling in love easily after some point - and
I didn't.
> > I read him as asking for
> > advice on how to cope with his melancholia, given that he feels he
> > can't
> > explain to his wife why he feels that way, and/or how to explain his
> >feelings
> > to her more effectively.
Thank you for understanding. But you are making gender assumptions -
I wonder why?
zen cat
Zen Cat
Michael Rosen wrote:
> When I read your post, I noticed you took some care not to reveal your
> gender or your spouse's; yet all the other replies you've received assumed
> you are male and your spouse female.
Good catch. It was really just an experiment to see what people
would assume. Interesting, isn't it, how people all assumed the same
thing? The real question is: does it matter? If so, what difference
does it make? I'm not asking to be a wise-ass, just curious.
> Should this assumption be maintained? Reversed? Or should we just butt out
> and keep it gender-neutral? (You said "married", so I mentally ruled out
> non-het relationships.)
Yes, we're legally married, M/F, the usual thing.
> My two cents' worth would be, see a poly-friendly counselor. A third voice
> can be amazingly helpful in redirecting strong reactions into constructive
> channels. The a.p website at www.polyamory.org has links to poly-friendly
> professionals' lists.
Thanks for the pointer. I'll check it out.
zen cat
Zen Cat
Ryk wrote:
> Wait until after the holidays. Then talk, openly, honestly and slowly.
> Sort out what you want and what she can live with, and whether there
> is any basis for compromise, or some acceptable overlap. e.g. she may
> be OK with strictly casual sexual flings, or with close friendships
> with no sex, or....? Be prepared for the possibility that there may
> not be any overlap -- then you will have to make a decision.
Interesting, isn't it... J is absolutely not threatened by overt
flirting (which I do all the time) or casual flings (in which I
very, very rarely engage). The threat is of my truly falling in love
with someone else.
> OTOH, she may be hearing you asking for "permission to cheat" or to
> get involved with swinging. Her tune might change a little if you
> deliver a different message.
I don't want permssion to cheat. I don't cheat. J knows about
everything I do, usually before I do it (even gave me permission in
advance one time). I want permission to love. I will admit, however,
to an ongoing desire for variety in sexual partners. It's just not
the overriding cause of my melancholia.
> Have you told her about your previous
> poly experience, how it worked, why you thought it was good, etc.?
I've mentioned it, but not in great detail. You're right that
talking about it would probably be a good ice-breaker to get the
subject out into the open. Thanks for the suggestion.
zen cat
JennieD-O'C
>Michael Rosen wrote:
>> When I read your post, I noticed you took some care not to reveal your
>> gender or your spouse's; yet all the other replies you've received assumed
>> you are male and your spouse female.
>
>Good catch. It was really just an experiment to see what people
>would assume. Interesting, isn't it, how people all assumed the same
>thing?
Actually, I didn't respond to your post, but *I* assumed you were female,
and was kind of perplexed when everyone who responded thought you were
male. I can't justify my assumption any more than anyone else can,
though, I suppose.
I wonder if I'm more likely to guess people as female? I have twice
mistakenly guessed the sex of alt.poly posters, but in both cases they
were biologically male and I had assumed them to be female. (Though one
of them turned out to be MtF transgendered, so I wasn't *completely*
off-base on that one.)
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
LoRe
> Thank you for understanding. But you are making gender assumptions -
> I wonder why?
Mebbe it's an age thing.
LoHepKittyRe
(I figured you were a gay male, or TG, akchully, if you want the deep dirty
secret. I wonder why.)
Stef Maruch
>Periodically, often seasonally, my poly nature attempts to reassert
>itself over my mono life,
What is it about the season that brings up "dwelling-about-poly" for
you?
I have S.A.D., so when someone says that they get melancholic in the
fall, I wonder whether it is S.A.D.-caused. Depression can change how
issues appear. Issues that are not a big deal at other times can grow
and loom and look overwhelming when one is depressed.
Why do you state that it is your "nature" to be poly whereas you are in
a "mono life"? Why is it that the past 13 years of monogamous behavior
mean less to you, in terms of identifying your "self", than your
previous poly behavior?
>resulting in a longing which manifests
>itelf as a melancholia so severe, I feel an actual physical aching
>in my chest. Right now, I'm going through one of those times.
>
>I've tried explaining polyamory (and especially polyfidelity) to my
>spouse ("J") to no avail. J finds the whole thing incomprehensible
>and, worse, threatening.
What's threatening about it to J? Does J think that the relationship
will change in an unpleasant way over this issue? Does J resent your
behavior when you become melancholic? Does J feel pressured to agree to
let you behave in a poly fashion? Is it very important to J to really
understand everything about how you think and feel?
>I've tried being very gentle about
>broaching the whole subject over several years, with no success. J
>has noticed there is something wrong with me, but I am at a loss how
>to explain without creating issues around the already stressful
>holidays.
It doesn't sound like there is any way for you to explain without
bringing up issues. So I guess the question to ask might be "is it worse
for J to know there is something wrong, without being told what, or is
it worse for J to know exactly what is wrong"?
(If I were J, I would want to know what was wrong, if your behavior were
severely changed. But I'm not sure how J feels.)
--
Stef
** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A lot of people out there still think Easy Rider had a happy ending.
-- P.J. O'Rourke
Stef Maruch
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>That's right. I can be content to some level being mono. It's just
>that you only have one short life (which I'm now at the midpoint
>of), so I'm hoping for more.
What exactly are you hoping for more of?
Do you think there are ways to obtain the feeling of "I have more"
without changing the monogamy agreement in your relationship? Or will it
only do for you to have "more people to have romantic/loving
relationships with"?
There is a lot of stuff out there in the world to engage with. Romantic
relationships are only one way of engaging with what exists.
--
Stef
** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Maybe this is a stepping stone on the way to the buddhist "detachment".
To know that NRE is everywhere, in everything, and there's no shortage
of it, so that you don't have to "hold on to" something that gives you
NRE, because you can always get it, anywhere, anytime, from anything.
-- Tolovana
Stef Maruch
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Interesting, isn't it... J is absolutely not threatened by overt
>flirting (which I do all the time) or casual flings (in which I
>very, very rarely engage). The threat is of my truly falling in love
>with someone else.
What about your falling in love with someone else is frightening or
threatening to J? What does J think will happen? What do you think will
happen?
--
Stef
** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has...
powerful muscles, but no personality. --Albert Einstein
Zen Cat
>
> In article <3A45449F...@pacbell.net>,
> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Periodically, often seasonally, my poly nature attempts to reassert
> >itself over my mono life,
>
> What is it about the season that brings up "dwelling-about-poly" for
> you?
Simply that during the holidays, I tend to reminisce about past
loves. Auld acquaintance and all that.
> Why do you state that it is your "nature" to be poly whereas you are in
> a "mono life"? Why is it that the past 13 years of monogamous behavior
> mean less to you, in terms of identifying your "self", than your
> previous poly behavior?
Excellent question. I view my monogamy as an accomodation. It
certainly has its good sides. And I *way* prefer it to zerogamy. I
guess my most basic underlying belief is that it is not only
unreasonable to expect, but impossible to achieve, a state where one
single other person can satisfy all one's amorous needs and wants.
> What's threatening about it to J? Does J think that the relationship
> will change in an unpleasant way over this issue? Does J resent your
> behavior when you become melancholic? Does J feel pressured to agree to
> let you behave in a poly fashion? Is it very important to J to really
> understand everything about how you think and feel?
J and I are very close and rarely hide anything from each other.
I've just learned to skirt the issue of polyamory because it causes
too much pain. I think J believes that if I were to add a new love
to my life that I would have less love to give to J. In a word,
she'd be jealous. But it's almost the opposite: when I am in the
process of becoming close or affectionate with someone, it actually
reinforces my love for J.
> It doesn't sound like there is any way for you to explain without
> bringing up issues. So I guess the question to ask might be "is it worse
> for J to know there is something wrong, without being told what, or is
> it worse for J to know exactly what is wrong"?
>
> (If I were J, I would want to know what was wrong, if your behavior were
> severely changed. But I'm not sure how J feels.)
Another excellent question. At least for now, it would be worse for
J to know *exactly* what is wrong. I continue to reassure J that
there is no problem with our marriage, which is true. There is a
problem with the way the vast majority of folks, including J, are
conditioned to regard monogamy as the only expression of fidelity or
devotion in love. I don't want to swing or cruise the bars. I just
want to be allowed to fall in love once in a while. (I'm very good
at it, to quote a friend.)
Thanks for asking intelligent questions which make me think. It's
refreshing to be able to discuss these issues; I'm glad I finally
de-lurked.
zen cat
Aahz Maruch
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>J and I are very close and rarely hide anything from each other.
>I've just learned to skirt the issue of polyamory because it causes
>too much pain. I think J believes that if I were to add a new love
>to my life that I would have less love to give to J. In a word,
>she'd be jealous.
Whoops! <grin> Gender-neutral writing is a bit tricky, isn't it?
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
'"Crisp" is a good quality for crackers; less so for pot roast.' --pnh
Jim Roberts
Owenbrau wrote:
So be honest.
jimbat
LoRe
Go to bed, jimbat! Santa doesn't do autographs! (Well, maybe for the doggie.
I'll put in a good word for him.)
[ernie laugh]
LaLo
(I know, I know. I'm going to bed.)
Ryk
<3A467F06...@pacbell.net>
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
{about gender of zen cat]
>Good catch. It was really just an experiment to see what people
>would assume. Interesting, isn't it, how people all assumed the same
>thing? The real question is: does it matter? If so, what difference
>does it make? I'm not asking to be a wise-ass, just curious.
Guilty! I don't know if I picked up gender from my own biases, or from
reading the other posts with gender assumptions in them. I try not to
do that, but I still do it.
That said, and having reread your posts, they still sound a lot like
other posts I have read over the years that have turned out to come
from male people. It's probably a whole collection of things.
As for "What difference does it make?" Men and women are demonstrably
different groups in contemporary North America. If I were to offer
generic advice without knowing anything about you it would probably be
coloured by potentially false perceptions of where you fit in.
My fault, my problem, live with it.....
Ryk
Stef Maruch
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Stef Maruch wrote:
>> Why do you state that it is your "nature" to be poly whereas you are in
>> a "mono life"? Why is it that the past 13 years of monogamous behavior
>> mean less to you, in terms of identifying your "self", than your
>> previous poly behavior?
>Excellent question. I view my monogamy as an accomodation. It
>certainly has its good sides. And I *way* prefer it to zerogamy. I
>guess my most basic underlying belief is that it is not only
>unreasonable to expect, but impossible to achieve, a state where one
>single other person can satisfy all one's amorous needs and wants.
Wow. If you are that unreconciled to monogamy (to the point where you
think it's unreasonable for someone to expect it) no wonder you get
melancholy over it. I haven't been able to stay in relationships that
were built on something I felt was unreasonable to expect. How do you?
I also wonder how you feel about all the people who are contentedly
monogamous. Do you feel they're fooling themselves? Bowing to
unreasonable expectations?
>> What's threatening about it to J? Does J think that the relationship
>> will change in an unpleasant way over this issue? Does J resent your
>> behavior when you become melancholic? Does J feel pressured to agree to
>> let you behave in a poly fashion? Is it very important to J to really
>> understand everything about how you think and feel?
>J and I are very close and rarely hide anything from each other.
>I've just learned to skirt the issue of polyamory because it causes
>too much pain. I think J believes that if I were to add a new love
>to my life that I would have less love to give to J.
What do you base this belief on? Is that what she has said?
>In a word, she'd be jealous.
Huh. To me the feeling of jealousy is somewhat different from the
feeling that I am receiving less love. They sometimes come up at the
same time, though.
>But it's almost the opposite: when I am in the
>process of becoming close or affectionate with someone, it actually
>reinforces my love for J.
Does it reinforce your love in a way that J notices? Do you behave
differently around J when you are close/affectionate with someone else?
How about the amount of time and energy you put into your relationship
with J, when you are involved with someone else? (A lot of times, when
people feel that a partner is giving them "less love," it's really
because their partner is giving them less time and energy.)
--
Stef
** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Love is a matter of chemistry, but sex is a matter of physics.
Janma
Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3A45A3A1...@bellatlantic.net...
if it's so simple....why do we need this newsgroup???
Janma...
*not a simpleton*
Jim Roberts
appear on Christmas?
Janma wrote:
> Jim Roberts <jim...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:3A45A3A1...@bellatlantic.net...
> >
> >
> > Zen Cat wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > I've tried explaining polyamory (and especially polyfidelity) to my
> > > spouse ("J") to no avail. J finds the whole thing incomprehensible
> > > and, worse, threatening. I've tried being very gentle about
> > > broaching the whole subject over several years, with no success. J
> > > has noticed there is something wrong with me, but I am at a loss how
> > > to explain without creating issues around the already stressful
> > > holidays.
> > >
> > > What do I do? Being poly isn't some choice I made, it's what I am.
> > > Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom or support.
> > >
> > > zen cat
>
What we have here is a case of heresy. I suggest occupying a mountain
fortress.
> >
> > If you were really a zen cat you would know, you would know yab-yum
> > love. It is simple.
> >
> > jimbat
>
> if it's so simple....why do we need this newsgroup???
>
> Janma...
> *not a simpleton*
That's a good question. You are definitely not a simpleton. You have
puzzled me.
This newsgroup seems to have arisen out of the earth. I think it was
because people need a friendly newsgroup that will not always abuse them.
Try rec.games.chess if you want the reverse. Try rec.backcountry if you
want a gentler life, and save the guns. I think I should start my own
newsgroup, but I wouldn't accept the responsibility.
We actually don't *need* this newsgroup. We were alive before and we will
be alive after.
Flee the fires.
jimbat
Janma
Cause we don't have the answers dumbat.....
>
> This newsgroup seems to have arisen out of the earth. I think it was
> because people need a friendly newsgroup that will not always abuse them.
> Try rec.games.chess if you want the reverse. Try rec.backcountry if you
> want a gentler life, and save the guns. I think I should start my own
> newsgroup, but I wouldn't accept the responsibility.
you love responsiblitiy, why else would you drag your ex wife and kids
around with you.
>
> We actually don't *need* this newsgroup. We were alive before and we
will
> be alive after.
>
> Flee the fires.
I
see
a
fire,
I head straight for it...
Janma...
*mesmerised*
Michael Rosen
> Stef Maruch wrote:
> > Why do you state that it is your "nature" to be poly whereas you are in
> > a "mono life"? Why is it that the past 13 years of monogamous behavior
> > mean less to you, in terms of identifying your "self", than your
> > previous poly behavior?
>
> Excellent question. I view my monogamy as an accomodation. It
> certainly has its good sides. And I *way* prefer it to zerogamy. I
> guess my most basic underlying belief is that it is not only
> unreasonable to expect, but impossible to achieve, a state where one
> single other person can satisfy all one's amorous needs and wants.
This is entirely alien to me. IME, if someone can't fill a need for me,
it's probably one I should be filling for myself. I'm engaged (!) to
someone who fills needs I didn't know I had and finds new
needs/hopes/fantasies to fill every time I turn around, without any apparent
extra exertion or effort on her part. I could easily spend a lifetime with
TS (and plan to), without ever finding some "need" for whom I require
someone else.
The thing that tells me I'm naturally[1] poly is, the more I love her, the
easier I find it to love the one standing next to her, the one she just
introduced me to (she knows some really neat people), or someone I met while
I was away from her entirely. Loving makes it easier for me to love more.
(I can relate to the rest of your predicament, btw. TS is infused with the
attitude that there is a difference between "loving" and "being in love",
and assumes that the latter is only possible one at a time. Oh well; I've
been upfront with her, my eyes are wide open, I've been here before and know
the terrain, and I already know, from experience, that she doesn't do a big
jealousy thing. I'm happy!)
--
Michael Rosen
[1] Anyone up for another long, hairsplittingly painful thread on
"innateness"? I thought not. ;-)
Michael Rosen
>
>
> Michael Rosen wrote:
>
> > When I read your post, I noticed you took some care not to reveal your
> > gender or your spouse's; yet all the other replies you've received
assumed
> > you are male and your spouse female.
>
> Good catch. It was really just an experiment to see what people
> would assume. Interesting, isn't it, how people all assumed the same
> thing? The real question is: does it matter? If so, what difference
> does it make? I'm not asking to be a wise-ass, just curious.
Go ahead, be a wise-ass. It's not like you won't have company around here.
;-)
Does it matter? Not to me. Not to some I know of. To others, probably.
To you? That's the question that ought to govern.
I think the assumptions came out of other threads. "Rapierwits" posted his
dilemma regarding his wife, "J". I initially assumed you were male on that
(irrational) basis. On the other hand, there's another poster, "Cat", who
is self-identified as female, which caused me first to (meaninglessly)
revise my (useless) assumption, then to wonder why I was assuming, and then
finally to ask.
> > My two cents' worth would be, see a poly-friendly counselor. A third
voice
> > can be amazingly helpful in redirecting strong reactions into
constructive
> > channels. The a.p website at www.polyamory.org has links to
poly-friendly
> > professionals' lists.
>
> Thanks for the pointer. I'll check it out.
:-)
--
Michael Rosen
Zen Cat
zen cat
Zen Cat
Stef Maruch wrote:
> In article <3A46A64E...@pacbell.net>,
> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >I guess my most basic underlying belief is that it is not only
> >unreasonable to expect, but impossible to achieve, a state where one
> >single other person can satisfy all one's amorous needs and wants.
>
> Wow. If you are that unreconciled to monogamy (to the point where you
> think it's unreasonable for someone to expect it) no wonder you get
> melancholy over it. I haven't been able to stay in relationships that
> were built on something I felt was unreasonable to expect. How do you?
Because, while it may not be perfect, it's pretty darn good. As I
mentioned in my first post, we've been married 13 years (and have
known each other for 17). Not all of those years have been idyllic.
But now in middle age, we have reached a state of consistent
happiness based on true love. I'd be crazy to throw that away.
> I also wonder how you feel about all the people who are contentedly
> monogamous. Do you feel they're fooling themselves? Bowing to
> unreasonable expectations?
"Contentment" is not a strong word to describe a relationship. Cows
are content. I can be, and largely am, "content" with monogamy. But
I fall in love easily. OK, I don't fight it that hard when it
happens. It would be nice to have a relationship where secondaries
were allowed. I guess I don't know that many couples who are truly
overjoyed with monogamy. There's always temptation, wistfulness, and
"what if" thinking.
> How about the amount of time and energy you put into your relationship
> with J, when you are involved with someone else? (A lot of times, when
> people feel that a partner is giving them "less love," it's really
> because their partner is giving them less time and energy.)
Well, I don't get "involved involved" with anyone else. One time I
was in a state of mutual infatuation with a co-worker ("A") for
several months, which did take energy away from my relationship with
J. J told me she wished I'd just fuck A and get it over with. Wise
woman. I fucked A and got it over with. Turned out it really was
just infatuation, and J and I got on with our lives with renewed
energy, devotion, and trust. Overall, a positive experience for both
of us.
zen cat
Jim Roberts
Janma wrote:
[all further references deleted]
> Cause we don't have the answers dumbat.....
> >
But that's because you don't listen to the humm. Just don't listen to persons
wearing vestments, or suits.
>
> > This newsgroup seems to have arisen out of the earth. I think it was
> > because people need a friendly newsgroup that will not always abuse them.
> > Try rec.games.chess if you want the reverse. Try rec.backcountry if you
> > want a gentler life, and save the guns. I think I should start my own
> > newsgroup, but I wouldn't accept the responsibility.
>
> you love responsiblitiy, why else would you drag your ex wife and kids
> around with you.
>
I love responsibility if it can hug me or sit on my lap. I think one's former
spouses should stick around, so that things don't get too disrupted. Yes, you
have a problem with this, but if you would only pay attention, it wouldn't be
so bad.
[...]
> I
> see
> a
> fire,
> I head straight for it...
>
I know. We have an actress named Linda Fiorentino who at the end of a movie
some years ago whose title I have no clue about - she played a CIA agent - a
perfect role for her - said to her co-star Anthony Edwards when he told her
that he was was no longer a boy (he was young then), and she said, "I know" in
a way that really started me up. She was that sort of person, heading for the
fire. Perhaps you have a virtual profession in low skullduggery, if you get
your resume fixed up. Now, I've blown your cover.
>
> Janma...
> *mesmerised*
Mesmer was a quack. Beware. I am not.
jimbatty
Stef Maruch
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Comments below.
>
>Stef Maruch wrote:
>> In article <3A46A64E...@pacbell.net>,
>> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >I guess my most basic underlying belief is that it is not only
>> >unreasonable to expect, but impossible to achieve, a state where one
>> >single other person can satisfy all one's amorous needs and wants.
>>
>> Wow. If you are that unreconciled to monogamy (to the point where you
>> think it's unreasonable for someone to expect it) no wonder you get
>> melancholy over it. I haven't been able to stay in relationships that
>> were built on something I felt was unreasonable to expect. How do you?
>
>Because, while it may not be perfect, it's pretty darn good. As I
>mentioned in my first post, we've been married 13 years (and have
>known each other for 17). Not all of those years have been idyllic.
>But now in middle age, we have reached a state of consistent
>happiness based on true love. I'd be crazy to throw that away.
OK. For me having a partner who expects something unreasonable does not
allow happiness. If I am happy, then by definition my partner is not
expecting something unreasonable. Might be expecting something annoying,
but not something unreasonable.
>> I also wonder how you feel about all the people who are contentedly
>> monogamous. Do you feel they're fooling themselves? Bowing to
>> unreasonable expectations?
>"Contentment" is not a strong word to describe a relationship. Cows
>are content.
We have very different connotations for the word, I guess. I think
contentment is a great word to describe a relationship, and I think a
relationship that has contentment at its core is likely to be a strong
relationship.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "cows are content," but generally
I assume that connotes "contentment is a sign of stupidity and
passivity." I don't agree. I think contentment is often the result of a
lot of hard work. I also don't think it's incompatible with dreaming or
wishing for things one doesn't currently have. But it is incompatible
with yearning for things one doesn't have to the point where one is
unable to appreciate what one does have. (I'm not saying that is what
you're doing.)
>I can be, and largely am, "content" with monogamy. But
>I fall in love easily. OK, I don't fight it that hard when it
>happens. It would be nice to have a relationship where secondaries
>were allowed. I guess I don't know that many couples who are truly
>overjoyed with monogamy. There's always temptation, wistfulness, and
>"what if" thinking.
There is always temptation, wistfulness, and what-if thinking in my
life, no matter whether I am acting poly or mono. I consider it part of
the human condition to think stuff isn't perfect and to dream of a
different life. So when I am wistful about something I find it useful to
examine whether what's missing is external or internal. I usually feel
wistful about external things but when I look at that, I often find that
what's missing is really internal.
Like you, I fall in love easily. But I also have finite time and energy.
I love, or would like the opportunity to love, more people than I have
time to spend with. So I am wistful and have what-if fantasies about
people I care about whom I don't have time for. If I dumped my current
loves and went pursuing new people, I would probably be wistful and have
what-if fantasies about my current loves.
So, in short, I don't think that being poly is likely to enable a person
who falls in love easily to do away with wistfulness and what-if
thinking. Just something to think about.
>> How about the amount of time and energy you put into your relationship
>> with J, when you are involved with someone else? (A lot of times, when
>> people feel that a partner is giving them "less love," it's really
>> because their partner is giving them less time and energy.)
>Well, I don't get "involved involved" with anyone else. One time I
>was in a state of mutual infatuation with a co-worker ("A") for
>several months, which did take energy away from my relationship with
>J. J told me she wished I'd just fuck A and get it over with. Wise
>woman. I fucked A and got it over with. Turned out it really was
>just infatuation, and J and I got on with our lives with renewed
>energy, devotion, and trust. Overall, a positive experience for both
>of us.
If I were J, I might be afraid that if you fell in love with someone
else, it would be more like the "mutual infatuation" experience you had
than like what came after you fucked her and got it over with. In other
words, I might be afraid that you'd have less time and energy for me.
The only way to assuage those fears is to try it and see what happens
and talk about what went wrong and then try it again and see what
happens. Verbal reassurances don't help, only a firm commitment on the
part of everyone concerned to work through the relationship change.
--
Stef
** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cheerfulness in most cheerful people, is the rich and satisfying result
of strenuous discipline. -- Edwin Percy Whipple
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
>Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Stef Maruch wrote:
>>> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> I guess my most basic underlying belief is that it is not only
>>>> unreasonable to expect, but impossible to achieve, a state where
>>>> one single other person can satisfy all one's amorous needs and
>>>> wants.
>>> Wow. If you are that unreconciled to monogamy (to the point
>>> where you think it's unreasonable for someone to expect it) no
>>> wonder you get melancholy over it. I haven't been able to stay in
>>> relationships that were built on something I felt was
>>> unreasonable to expect. How do you?
>> Because, while it may not be perfect, it's pretty darn good.
>> As I mentioned in my first post, we've been married 13 years (and
>> have known each other for 17). Not all of those years have been
>> idyllic. But now in middle age, we have reached a state of
>> consistent happiness based on true love. I'd be crazy to throw
>> that away.
> OK. For me having a partner who expects something unreasonable
> does not allow happiness. If I am happy, then by definition my
> partner is not expecting something unreasonable. Might be
> expecting something annoying, but not something unreasonable.
The way I read this, ZenCat said it is "unreasonable to expect"
all of ZenCat's amorous needs and wants to be met. This is
different from saying that either ZenCat, or ZenCat's partner,
"expects something unreasonable". Near as I can tell
neither of them expects anything unreasonable.
Steve
rapie...@my-deja.com
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Comments below...
>
> rapie...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <924dqs$jc8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > lizw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <20001223222622...@ng-mb1.aol.com>,
> > > owen...@aol.com (Owenbrau) wrote:
> > > > rapier wrote:
>
> > > Hang on, where did you both get the idea that Zen Cat was
> > contemplating
> > > breaking the rules or felt he couldn't keep them?
> >
> > From what he said after the bit about never doing anything to
jepardise
> > his marriage. In any case his repeatadly bringing up the subject
with
> > his S/O and being sad about it *does* jepordize his marrage to J.
> >
> > He is hiding his feelings, and she will sense that, and that puts a
> > wedge between them.
> >
> > > He says very clearly that
> > > he won't do anything to jeopardise his marriage.
>
> That's right. I can be content to some level being mono. It's just
> that you only have one short life (which I'm now at the midpoint
> of), so I'm hoping for more.
In that case I apologize. I misread you, I understood you to be
pretty sure you were not going to be able to continue being mono. In
that case bringing up that you were at one time poly, and would like to
be so again, with the consent of your S/O is IMHO reasonable.
> >
> > He already has, because he was not 100% honest with J about his poly
> > nature at the start. I agree that he *wants* to keep J, but doing
it
> > by deliberate deception is not a way to be happy together.
>
> Actually, one of the first things I ever told J when we first met in
> 1983 was that I fell in love easily. J found that amusing,
> especially after we fell in love! The funny part is that J
> expected me to *stop* falling in love easily after some point - and
> I didn't.
That's not the same as telling J that you are poly, or that you can and
have been in love with more than one person at a time. Though from
what you say perhaps you have told J this.
>
> > > I read him as asking for
> > > advice on how to cope with his melancholia, given that he feels he
> > > can't
> > > explain to his wife why he feels that way, and/or how to explain
his
> > >feelings
> > > to her more effectively.
>
> Thank you for understanding. But you are making gender assumptions -
> I wonder why?
I originally did not, when liz did, I thought she knew what she was
talking about, sorry if any problems.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Liz W
> Thank you for understanding. But you are making gender assumptions -
> I wonder why?
*looks back at Zen Cat's original post*
Huh. I could have sworn I saw the word "wife" in there somewhere. I don't
know why I made that assumption either. It's the second time I've done that
here recently - must be more careful.
Sorry.
Liz
--
"It's like looking down a well at a can full of worms" - GCW
noway imtellin
wrote:
entering a mono marriage when you're poly is like marrying a woman
when you're gay. You have to expect to feel lost and have problems.
I for one can't figure out why so many people let themselves be
pressured into a life of torment to please someone who clearly has no
respect for them.
women bully men into marriage, and the church is right behind them on
it. my brothers and I are single dads and we're all quite happily
independant raising our families. I'm glad I'm not married but I see
a lot of crap from women who want marriage and have no respect for my
beliefs or lifestyle. They really think that by being a bitch to me
that I will want to marry?
Its a mystery. For you, maybe there is an explanation for what you're
doing... but if you're here posting complaints about it I'd say you've
made a huge mistake.
99% of all marriages fail. By that I mean, even in those rare
marriages that make it to death of one spouse [via old age], 7 of 10
have had affairs. More marriages end in the UNTIMELY death of a
spouse than by expiration, which is an unusual feature shared with
coal miners and other hazardous duties.
Honestly, if you want a relationship to really last, the worst thing
you can do is marry. True monogamy is a myth perpetuated by religion.
Man is naturally bisexual and polygamous, as is any tribal society one
looks at. Recent studies show that few mammals mate till death, and
in fact most have multiple partners and offspring via other group
members, etc.
This kind of data used to be censored and unilaterally rejected by
all universities until the 60's. For a study to be this conclusive,
it has to be at least two decades long or more, and the last few
studies done were 25 and 30 years. So we've only begun seeing this
data taken seriously since the late 80's!
peace.
Zen Cat
> Stef Maruch <st...@cat-and-dragon.com> wrote:
> > OK. For me having a partner who expects something unreasonable
> > does not allow happiness. If I am happy, then by definition my
> > partner is not expecting something unreasonable. Might be
> > expecting something annoying, but not something unreasonable.
>
> The way I read this, ZenCat said it is "unreasonable to expect"
> all of ZenCat's amorous needs and wants to be met. This is
> different from saying that either ZenCat, or ZenCat's partner,
> "expects something unreasonable". Near as I can tell
> neither of them expects anything unreasonable.
I believe that expecting one person to solely meet all of another
person's needs places an awesome burden on the other person. I don't
want to be anyone else's sole source of romantic love and I don't
want one single person to be mine. We all have so much to give and
to share. Sharing, to me, is a delight. (During our 13 years of
marriage, J has had one fling that I know about. When she told me
about it, it filled me with joy that she had found pleasure in the
arms of a friend. I was proud of her and recognized the boost that
it gave to her self-esteem. (As in "someone other than my husband
likes me enough and finds me desirable enough to take to bed.") I
think we all need that boost once in a while.)
We all have differing opinons on what is reasonable. I find
monoamory unreasonable, while J finds polyamory unreasonable. I
don't expect either one of us will change our minds on this
significantly. So to that extent, we each expect something which is
reasonable to ourself but not to the other. This is not an ideal
situation, but one which can be managed.
So maybe I should just be happy with the occasional fling (defined
not as a random one night stand with a stranger, but as pleasure
with a friend). It's nowhere near as satisfying as being "in love,"
but it partially assuages the longing and is something which doesn't
threaten J. It's the eros without the agape, which maybe is good
enough.
Can you tell that just talking this out with all of you is helping
me level out? I am grateful for all of your thoughts and willingness
to share your feelings.
zen cat
JennieD-O'C
>I believe that expecting one person to solely meet all of another
>person's needs places an awesome burden on the other person. I don't
>want to be anyone else's sole source of romantic love and I don't
>want one single person to be mine.
Argh. What does "expecting one person to solely meet all of another
person's needs" have to do with "being anyone's sole source of romantic
love"? Assuming you feel you have a need for romantic love, being
monogamous means asking that person to meet *that one particular* need,
not *all* of your needs.
I've been monogamous. Although we did have a commitment not to get
romantically and/or sexually involved with other people at that point, we
*never* expected each other to "meet all of our needs". (Are there really
monogamous people who expect this, or is this just a red herring some
polyfolk throw in when they're trying to diss monogamy?)
>We all have differing opinons on what is reasonable. I find
>monoamory unreasonable, while J finds polyamory unreasonable.
Personally, I think you're both wrong -- neither relationship style is
"unreasonable", it's just a matter of what's right for particular people.
As long as you guys are throwing "reasonable" into the equation, it's
going to make it that much harder for the two of you to understand each
other.
Maybe it would help for you two to each sit down and make a list of the
things that you like about your preferred relationship style, without
being judgemental about the other's preference? That might be a step
toward more mutual understanding.
Zen Cat
> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >I believe that expecting one person to solely meet all of another
> >person's needs places an awesome burden on the other person. I don't
> >want to be anyone else's sole source of romantic love and I don't
> >want one single person to be mine.
>
> Argh. What does "expecting one person to solely meet all of another
> person's needs" have to do with "being anyone's sole source of romantic
> love"? Assuming you feel you have a need for romantic love, being
> monogamous means asking that person to meet *that one particular* need,
> not *all* of your needs.
Ouch, ouch, ouch! Sorry! When I wrote "all of another person's
needs" I didn't mean every possible need that a person might ever
have in their life. I meant needs vis-a-vis love (and I think there
are more than one such need). I apologize for my lack of clarity!
> >We all have differing opinons on what is reasonable. I find
> >monoamory unreasonable, while J finds polyamory unreasonable.
>
> Personally, I think you're both wrong -- neither relationship style is
> "unreasonable", it's just a matter of what's right for particular people.
> As long as you guys are throwing "reasonable" into the equation, it's
> going to make it that much harder for the two of you to understand each
> other.
OK, now you're jumping on my words a little. I will try to be more
precise in my posts. I meant that monoamory is unreasonable *for me*
and polyamory is unreasonable *for J*. I did not mean that either
style is by definition unreasonable or unreasonable for every
person. So I think we're in violent agreement.
zen cat
EveningStar
noway imtellin wrote:
snipped
> 99% of all marriages fail. By that I mean, even in those rare
> marriages that make it to death of one spouse [via old age], 7 of 10
> have had affairs. More marriages end in the UNTIMELY death of a
> spouse than by expiration, which is an unusual feature shared with
> coal miners and other hazardous duties.
source please?
>
> Honestly, if you want a relationship to really last, the worst thing
> you can do is marry. True monogamy is a myth perpetuated by religion.
> Man is naturally bisexual and polygamous, as is any tribal society one
> looks at. Recent studies show that few mammals mate till death, and
> in fact most have multiple partners and offspring via other group
> members, etc.
Again source, please?
Maureen
JennieD-O'C
>Ouch, ouch, ouch! Sorry! When I wrote "all of another person's
>needs" I didn't mean every possible need that a person might ever
>have in their life. I meant needs vis-a-vis love (and I think there
>are more than one such need). I apologize for my lack of clarity!
Okay. But I wonder whether you might not be letting through some biases
you have against monogamy with your "unclear" wording. If you're also
doing this in your discussions with your partner (and especially if she is
doing the same with respect to polyamory), that could account for a lot of
miscommunication and hard feelings about this subject.
For example, you said:
>>>I believe that expecting one person to solely meet all of another
>>>person's needs places an awesome burden on the other person.
Assuming you meant "romantic needs" rather than "needs" in general, this
sounds an awful lot like a blanket condemnation of monogamy. Given that
you have a partner who prefers monogamy, anything even remotely smelling
of blanket condemnation of her chosen relationship style is going to cause
you guys problems. You phrased this as something general, rather than
something specific to your own particular preference. If I were your
partner, I'd be seriously set off by that. If I were in her shoes, I'd be
feeling strongly that I'd want you to understand *why* I preferred
monogamy, and accept that I have valid reasons for that. If you really do
"believe that expecting one person to solely meet all of another person's
[romantic] needs places an awesome burden on the other person", it is
clear to me that you do not accept that monogamy can function in a way
that is loving and honest and respectful, and not at all burdensome.
>>>We all have differing opinons on what is reasonable. I find
>>>monoamory unreasonable, while J finds polyamory unreasonable.
>>
>> Personally, I think you're both wrong -- neither relationship style is
>> "unreasonable", it's just a matter of what's right for particular people.
>> As long as you guys are throwing "reasonable" into the equation, it's
>> going to make it that much harder for the two of you to understand each
>> other.
>
>OK, now you're jumping on my words a little.
Given that you've asked us to help you communicate better with your
partner about this stuff, don't you think that makes sense? All I'm doing
is pointing out some of the things that would be likely to be hot buttons
for me if I were in your partner's shoes.
>I meant that monoamory is unreasonable *for me*
>and polyamory is unreasonable *for J*. I did not mean that either
>style is by definition unreasonable or unreasonable for every
>person.
I think using the word 'unreasonable' to talk about personal preferences
is a bad idea overall. If I were in a conversation with someone who used
the term to describe some of my personal preferences, even if the person
periodically clarified that they meant "unreasonable for that person
personally", it would likely raise my hackles.
Besides, what you said was:
>>>We all have differing opinons on what is reasonable. I find
>>>monoamory unreasonable, while J finds polyamory unreasonable.
If you are *really* talking about what is reasonable for *you*, and your
partner is *really* talking about what is reasonable for *her*, then you
don't have "differing opinions" at all.
serene -- Sandra Vannoy
>Maybe this is a stepping stone on the way to the buddhist "detachment".
>To know that NRE is everywhere, in everything, and there's no shortage
>of it, so that you don't have to "hold on to" something that gives you
>NRE, because you can always get it, anywhere, anytime, from anything.
>-- Tolovana
Oh, I like this. I missed it if it was posted here, but it reminds me of some
of the discussions we've had about friendship-NRE, project-NRE, etc., and
helps to pinpoint for me why it's so cool as a concept.
serene
--
Things did not work out between telocity and me; nor do I seem to
have web access at the moment. AOL will have to do for now.
serene -- Sandra Vannoy
>Comments below.
Cool. In Usenet convention, "below" is exactly where they belong. :-)
>
>Stef Maruch wrote:
>> In article <3A46A64E...@pacbell.net>,
>> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >I guess my most basic underlying belief is that it is not only
>> >unreasonable to expect, but impossible to achieve, a state where one
>> >single other person can satisfy all one's amorous needs and wants.
>>
>> Wow. If you are that unreconciled to monogamy (to the point where you
>> think it's unreasonable for someone to expect it) no wonder you get
>> melancholy over it. I haven't been able to stay in relationships that
>> were built on something I felt was unreasonable to expect. How do you?
>
>Because, while it may not be perfect, it's pretty darn good. As I
>mentioned in my first post, we've been married 13 years (and have
>known each other for 17). Not all of those years have been idyllic.
>But now in middle age, we have reached a state of consistent
>happiness based on true love. I'd be crazy to throw that away.
I guess the question that keeps coming to mind is "Are maintaining it
exactly as-is and throwing it away your only two choices?"
>
>> I also wonder how you feel about all the people who are contentedly
>> monogamous. Do you feel they're fooling themselves? Bowing to
>> unreasonable expectations?
>
>"Contentment" is not a strong word to describe a relationship. Cows
>are content. I can be, and largely am, "content" with monogamy. But
>I fall in love easily. OK, I don't fight it that hard when it
>happens. It would be nice to have a relationship where secondaries
>were allowed. I guess I don't know that many couples who are truly
>overjoyed with monogamy. There's always temptation, wistfulness, and
>"what if" thinking.
I disagree. And I strongly suggest that you excise some of the "always"
kinds of language from your posts. There are happily monogamous people
in the world, lots of them, and some of them post here.
Zen Cat
> Do you think there are ways to obtain the feeling of "I have more"
> without changing the monogamy agreement in your relationship?
Certainly. (Although I don't recall an explicit monogamy agreement.
I'm pretty sure I recall having "and forsaking all others" elided
from the wedding vows. (We also changed "til death do us part" to
"for the rest of our lives[,] together" with the purposely ambiguous
(un)spoken comma.))
> Or will it
> only do for you to have "more people to have romantic/loving
> relationships with"?
Well, yes, that is the subject I am addressing to this newsgroup. If
I'd wanted advice on how to catch more fish, I'd have gone to
rec.outdoors.fishing.
> There is a lot of stuff out there in the world to engage with. Romantic
> relationships are only one way of engaging with what exists.
Romantic relationships are a very special way of engaging with
fellow travelers on this small planet. I want more of them
(relationships, not planets). "Is that so wrong?" [Imagine Jon
Lovitz imitating Harvey Fierstein.]
zen cat
Zen Cat
> In article <3A47ACED...@pacbell.net>, Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net>
> writes:
> >Comments below.
>
> Cool. In Usenet convention, "below" is exactly where they belong. :-)
I know. I've been on Usenet since it used UUCP over dial-up phone
lines as its primary transport. I added that line because some folks
follow the newfangled convention of putting follow-ups at the top.
> >But now in middle age, we have reached a state of consistent
> >happiness based on true love. I'd be crazy to throw that away.
>
> I guess the question that keeps coming to mind is "Are maintaining it
> exactly as-is and throwing it away your only two choices?"
Precisely. I am hoping to do neither, and am certainly not going to
pursue the latter. I was responding to some replies which used harsh
words like "divorce".
> >I guess I don't know that many couples who are truly
> >overjoyed with monogamy. There's always temptation, wistfulness, and
> >"what if" thinking.
>
> I disagree. And I strongly suggest that you excise some of the "always"
> kinds of language from your posts. There are happily monogamous people
> in the world, lots of them, and some of them post here.
Point taken.
In my personal circle of friends (educated, professional,
respectable-type folks in the 25 - 60 age range), all the men with
whom I have spoken of this would prefer more romantic variety than
strict monogamy permits. All of them. How many of them act upon it,
I do not know.
zen cat
Aahz Maruch
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>In my personal circle of friends (educated, professional,
>respectable-type folks in the 25 - 60 age range), all the men with
>whom I have spoken of this would prefer more romantic variety than
>strict monogamy permits. All of them. How many of them act upon it,
>I do not know.
Question is, for how many of them is this a fantasy (as in, "I would
prefer it if I were more handsome.") versus for how many of them is this
something they would be willing to work at (as in Better Living Through
Scheduling [tm]).
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Ninth Virtual Anniversary: 5 days and counting
Zen Cat
> In article <3A491FF8...@pacbell.net>,
> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >In my personal circle of friends (educated, professional,
> >respectable-type folks in the 25 - 60 age range), all the men with
> >whom I have spoken of this would prefer more romantic variety than
> >strict monogamy permits. All of them. How many of them act upon it,
> >I do not know.
>
> Question is, for how many of them is this a fantasy (as in, "I would
> prefer it if I were more handsome.") versus for how many of them is this
> something they would be willing to work at (as in Better Living Through
> Scheduling [tm]).
Indeed. As I said, I don't really know. Let's use me as an example.
While I am comfortable discussing a range of topics regarding
polyamory, I stop short of coming out to most of my friends and
revealing myself as poly-on-the-inside. (Some of them do know.)
The reason is that the community where I live, in the San Francisco
Bay Area, is very well-connected; everybody knows everybody and many
people talk about other people for the fun of having something to
gossip about. My name is familiar to folks in a couple of tech
circles in the region. Which is why I hide behind an alias in this
newsgroup - something I don't feel particularly good about and which
I've never done before in over two decades of being on the 'net. My
boss or my employees may be lurking on this group, for example, and
I don't wish to become water-cooler discussion fodder. (Not to
mention the fact that every single Usenet posting gets archived
forever on deja.com. When I search for my name, I find incredibly
ancient postings of mine. Scary. But I digress.)
So I suspect that, in addition to the "out" polyfolk I know, there
are more like myself who are still in the closet. I have no way of
knowing which of those take polyamory beyond fantasy.
Work at it is something I am willing to do. That's why I'm here.
Thanks to some of the more thoughtful participants of this group,
I'm learning a little more every day. Stay with me, folks. I have no
desire to offend anyone, I'm just trying to gain some insight that I
can put into practice.
zen cat
Heather Anne Nicoll
> Ouch, ouch, ouch! Sorry! When I wrote "all of another person's
> needs" I didn't mean every possible need that a person might ever
> have in their life. I meant needs vis-a-vis love (and I think there
> are more than one such need). I apologize for my lack of clarity!
"Needs" is a bit of a loaded term in some contexts. My sole major fight
with the beloved came when he used that particular word in a context
rather similar to this one, and I snapped back something along the lines
of, "You damn well know me better than that; that is _not_ what I was
talking about."
I don't have any romantic/love type _needs_ for having more than one
partner; I don't have a need for one partner, either. I'm _happier_ if,
when I love someone, I can express that love freely and without guilt to
the extent that seems fitting. Further, I'm at my best when I have two
stable primaries. None of this is a need; this is system optimization.
- Darkhawk, who tried to get in a "Recognizing this
is optimal for my emotional programming
is much like recognizing that using lynx
is a better use of system resources than
a graphical web browser" but couldn't
manage smoothly; therefore taglines it
--
Heather Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Total attraction -- it's driving me insane
A chain reaction. . . . -- Boston, "What's Your Name?"
serene -- Sandra Vannoy
writes:
>Stef Maruch wrote:
>> Do you think there are ways to obtain the feeling of "I have more"
>> without changing the monogamy agreement in your relationship?
>
>Certainly. (Although I don't recall an explicit monogamy agreement.
>I'm pretty sure I recall having "and forsaking all others" elided
>from the wedding vows. (We also changed "til death do us part" to
>"for the rest of our lives[,] together" with the purposely ambiguous
>(un)spoken comma.))
I think it's less important to remember what you promised all those
years ago than it is to find out what your spouse expects from you
*now*, and to renegotiate if that's what's called for.
serene -- Sandra Vannoy
writes:
>serene -- Sandra Vannoy wrote:
>> In article <3A47ACED...@pacbell.net>, Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net>
>> writes:
>> >Comments below.
>>
>> Cool. In Usenet convention, "below" is exactly where they belong. :-)
>
>I know. I've been on Usenet since it used UUCP over dial-up phone
>lines as its primary transport. I added that line because some folks
>follow the newfangled convention of putting follow-ups at the top.
Don'tcha *hate* that? :-)
>
>> >But now in middle age, we have reached a state of consistent
>> >happiness based on true love. I'd be crazy to throw that away.
>>
>> I guess the question that keeps coming to mind is "Are maintaining it
>> exactly as-is and throwing it away your only two choices?"
>
>Precisely. I am hoping to do neither, and am certainly not going to
>pursue the latter. I was responding to some replies which used harsh
>words like "divorce".
*nod* Understood. Thanks for clarifying.
>
>> >I guess I don't know that many couples who are truly
>> >overjoyed with monogamy. There's always temptation, wistfulness, and
>> >"what if" thinking.
>>
>> I disagree. And I strongly suggest that you excise some of the "always"
>> kinds of language from your posts. There are happily monogamous people
>> in the world, lots of them, and some of them post here.
>
>Point taken.
>
>In my personal circle of friends (educated, professional,
>respectable-type folks in the 25 - 60 age range), all the men with
>whom I have spoken of this would prefer more romantic variety than
>strict monogamy permits. All of them. How many of them act upon it,
>I do not know.
Just out of curiosity, what do the women of your acquaintance say
on this subject, if you've asked them?
Zen Cat
> For example, you [that's me, zen cat, for those of you tuning in late] said:
>
> >>>I believe that expecting one person to solely meet all of another
> >>>person's needs places an awesome burden on the other person.
>
> Assuming you meant "romantic needs" rather than "needs" in general, this
> sounds an awful lot like a blanket condemnation of monogamy. Given that
> you have a partner who prefers monogamy, anything even remotely smelling
> of blanket condemnation of her chosen relationship style is going to cause
> you guys problems. You phrased this as something general, rather than
> something specific to your own particular preference. If I were your
> partner, I'd be seriously set off by that.
This might be the most insightful, and helpful, contribution to this
entire thread. Very, very good point, and absolutely right on all
counts. I will remember this as I work my way past the holidays and
build up to a discussion with J. Thank you.
> >OK, now you're jumping on my words a little.
>
> Given that you've asked us to help you communicate better with your
> partner about this stuff, don't you think that makes sense? All I'm doing
> is pointing out some of the things that would be likely to be hot buttons
> for me if I were in your partner's shoes.
There are positive and negative ways to phrase most any point. You
would make your point more clearly by addressing it directly rather
than couching it in criticism. What you did in your previous post
was to condemn my opinions:
> >We all have differing opinons on what is reasonable. I find
> >monoamory unreasonable, while J finds polyamory unreasonable.
>
> Personally, I think you're both wrong
How can you call an opinion "wrong?" It's not an assertion of fact.
You can agree with it or disagree with it. For you to call it wrong
is intolerance of the sort I would not expect to find in this
newsgroup. I am grateful for your insights, but you (and others on
this group) might want to consider that courtesy - in any
communications medium - may encourage others to hold you in higher
esteem than condemnation.
Now then, if you really want to let loose, unsheath your claws and
slash away on that "noway imtellin" idiot. I'll get out of the way
and watch.
zen cat
JennieD-O'C
>This might be the most insightful, and helpful, contribution to this
>entire thread. Very, very good point, and absolutely right on all
>counts. I will remember this as I work my way past the holidays and
>build up to a discussion with J. Thank you.
Glad to have been of help.
>There are positive and negative ways to phrase most any point. You
>would make your point more clearly by addressing it directly rather
>than couching it in criticism. What you did in your previous post
>was to condemn my opinions:
>
>> >We all have differing opinons on what is reasonable. I find
>> >monoamory unreasonable, while J finds polyamory unreasonable.
>>
>> Personally, I think you're both wrong
>
>How can you call an opinion "wrong?" It's not an assertion of fact.
>You can agree with it or disagree with it. For you to call it wrong
>is intolerance of the sort I would not expect to find in this
>newsgroup.
Oh, come on -- 'tolerance' doesn't mean I have to be open to thinking all
ideas are good ones. Imagine you'd said "I find heterosexuality
unreasonable, while J finds homosexuality unreasonable". I'd have
responded much in the same way. I first of all don't think opinions like
that make sense, I second of all think they're damaging, and I third of
all think the use of 'reasonable' in this context may be contributing to
your communication problems (and especially if she's talking the same way
about polyamory). I think that's enough to say "I think you're both
wrong".
I admit, though, that if that particular phrasing made you ignore the rest
of my last two posts, though, then it would have definitely been better to
phrase the same thing in a different way.
>I am grateful for your insights, but you (and others on
>this group) might want to consider that courtesy - in any
>communications medium - may encourage others to hold you in higher
>esteem than condemnation.
And you might want to hold back a little on those interpretations. I
wasn't condemning you; I was telling you I thought your and your partner's
ideas on this were faulty. If I'd felt condemning, I wouldn't have
responded to you at all; that's how I work. (Maybe it would help to think
of my original post having been said in a thoughtful tone rather than a
snarky tone, and it'll come closer to how I meant it.)
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
Still no toaster oven, but we finally bought a DVD player. Whew. :-)
Aahz Maruch
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> wrote:
>
> Still no toaster oven, but we finally bought a DVD player. Whew. :-)
Heh. Yay!
It was a bit easier for us. The first DVD player we got was the
cheapest one at CostCo that seemed to match our specs (because we
weren't sure we were really ready to switch). The second one was a
Pioneer DVL-919 because we decided we needed a second laser disc player;
some of our LDs will *NEVER* be available on DVD (most notably the three
Star Wars movies with original special effects), and we wanted to make
sure we could play them.
We decided we needed a second DVD player because the first one kept
having problems reading discs and because we discovered that it didn't
do closed captions (some movies have captions instead of subtitles,
something we didn't really realize until long after a frustrating
episode trying to watch _The Crying Game_). It's a Sharp DV-600 so
everyone knows what to avoid.
Speaking of DVD, everyone should go read the current issue of RISKS
(http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/21.17.html), which contains an article
about changing the way hard drives are manufactured to provide built-in
copy protection. RMS's story comes closer to being true every day....
(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html)
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Ninth Virtual Anniversary: 4 days and counting
Stef Maruch
serene -- Sandra Vannoy <serene...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <92674u$5to$5...@news.panix.com>, st...@panix.com (Stef Maruch) writes:
>
>>Maybe this is a stepping stone on the way to the buddhist "detachment".
>>To know that NRE is everywhere, in everything, and there's no shortage
>>of it, so that you don't have to "hold on to" something that gives you
>>NRE, because you can always get it, anywhere, anytime, from anything.
>>-- Tolovana
>
>Oh, I like this. I missed it if it was posted here, but it reminds me of some
>of the discussions we've had about friendship-NRE, project-NRE, etc., and
>helps to pinpoint for me why it's so cool as a concept.
It was posted here a long time ago. *sigh* By someone I lost touch with
and I miss.
--
Stef
** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If Hestia were alive in L.A. today, she would be known as
the Goddess of Quality Time. -- Steven
Stef Maruch
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Stef Maruch wrote:
>> Do you think there are ways to obtain the feeling of "I have more"
>> without changing the monogamy agreement in your relationship?
>
>Certainly. (Although I don't recall an explicit monogamy agreement.
I used the term loosely because I get the impression from your posts
that you have been de facto adhering to emotional monogamy in this
relationship out of respect for your spouse's wishes.
>> Or will it
>> only do for you to have "more people to have romantic/loving
>> relationships with"?
>Well, yes, that is the subject I am addressing to this newsgroup. If
>I'd wanted advice on how to catch more fish, I'd have gone to
>rec.outdoors.fishing.
*shrug* Since you mentioned that your melancholia was negatively
affecting your relationship and poly seemed to be a troublesome issue, I
thought you might be interested in thoughts on how to deal with the
melancholia in other ways. My apologies if such thoughts are unwelcome.
>> There is a lot of stuff out there in the world to engage with. Romantic
>> relationships are only one way of engaging with what exists.
>Romantic relationships are a very special way of engaging with
>fellow travelers on this small planet. I want more of them
>(relationships, not planets). "Is that so wrong?" [Imagine Jon
>Lovitz imitating Harvey Fierstein.]
It's not wrong, of course. It just sounds like traveling that road will
involve some difficulties for you. When I am facing a difficult road I
like to investigate my options thoroughly to make sure there aren't
easier roads that would give me what I want.
--
Stef
** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Every time you manage to close the door on Reality, it comes in through
the window.
Stef Maruch
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>JennieD-O'C wrote:
>> For example, you [that's me, zen cat, for those of you tuning in late] said:
>> >We all have differing opinons on what is reasonable. I find
>> >monoamory unreasonable, while J finds polyamory unreasonable.
>> Personally, I think you're both wrong
>How can you call an opinion "wrong?" It's not an assertion of fact.
>You can agree with it or disagree with it. For you to call it wrong
>is intolerance of the sort I would not expect to find in this
>newsgroup.
To me when "reasonable" and "unreasonable" are used to describe
something, it does not sound like a personal opinion. It sounds like a
blanket moral/ethical judgement. In other words, when you say that you
find monogamy "unreasonable," it sounds like you're saying that people
in general who want or expect monogamy are irrational and/or bullying.
I think it's acceptable to call someone else's moral/ethical judgement
"wrong" if that judgement seems to be applied to other people. I
wouldn't say calling a judgement "wrong" is tolerant, but I wouldn't
call it excessively intolerant either.
If I wanted to express a negative opinion or personal statement about
monogamy that didn't stray into the realm of judging other people, I
would say "Monogamy doesn't work well for me" or "I don't like
monogamy."
Along the same lines that Jennie was pursuing, if someone used
"unreasonable" to describe my preferences instead of saying "your
preferences don't work well for me," it would likely cause me to
retreat even more firmly into my corner and make coming to a mutual
agreement more difficult.
--
Stef
** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cartoon Law I: Any body suspended in space will remain in space until
made aware of its situation.
Zen Cat
> In article <3A491FF8...@pacbell.net>, Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net>
> writes:
> >serene -- Sandra Vannoy wrote:
> >> In article <3A47ACED...@pacbell.net>, Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net>
> >> writes:
> >> >Comments below.
> >>
> >> Cool. In Usenet convention, "below" is exactly where they belong. :-)
> >
> >I know. I've been on Usenet since it used UUCP over dial-up phone
> >lines as its primary transport. I added that line because some folks
> >follow the newfangled convention of putting follow-ups at the top.
>
> Don'tcha *hate* that? :-)
What I hate worse is people who quote an entire 100-line post and
then just add "me too" at the bottom. :-P
> >In my personal circle of friends (educated, professional,
> >respectable-type folks in the 25 - 60 age range), all the men with
> >whom I have spoken of this would prefer more romantic variety than
> >strict monogamy permits. All of them. How many of them act upon it,
> >I do not know.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what do the women of your acquaintance say
> on this subject, if you've asked them?
Good question. Getting a little off topic from the main gist of this
thread, but here goes.
Disclaimer: these are my personal observations, and the sample size
of women with whom I've spoken of this is small (less than 10, I
think). I am presenting these as neither fact nor opinion. Just
observations. Ergo, there's no point is agreeing or disagreeing with
them. So there. I'll do this Letterman-style just for fun.
5. "Women are so much more physically attractive than men. I love my
husband, but he ain't much to look at. I'd love to have a beautiful
woman by my side as well."
4. "Women are so much more communicative than men. I wish I had
another one in my household to talk womantalk with."
3. "My husband is a {lousy, inconsiderate, boring, impotent (pick
one)} lover. I wish I could have another."
2. "I would like to combine the qualities of <several other men,
usually including a real-life acquaintance and a handsome celebrity
or two> into my one perfect man."
And, the number one answer:
1. "One husband is more than sufficient. What the hell would I want
another one for?"
zen cat
JennieD-O'C
>> Still no toaster oven, but we finally bought a DVD player. Whew. :-)
>
>Heh. Yay!
It wasn't easy, though. We've been thinking of buying a DVD player for
about a year. My partner who likes to do research has been doing research
and reading up on the current political climate surrounding DVD players,
and this past summer he finally said we should buy one. Great! My
parents wanted to have the pleasure of buying us one while they were here
(they've been buying us DVDs for 2 Christmases already :-), and I told
them that would be great (silly me), but we had to turn down their gift
because my partner who thinks it's important to do research hadn't done
enough research while they were in town. Sigh. So he researched and
researched and went to a store in Chinatown that has multi-region DVD
players. He picked out a possibility, wrote down the model number, and
then came home and did some more research. Then we went there on
Christmas Day to look at it again, and both of my partners said, out loud,
that they'd be willing to buy it. Jackpot! Then the salesperson wasn't
able to answer one of my partner's questions, so we left without buying it
so he could go home and do some more research. The research was
accomplished, and that partner decided that would be a fine DVD player for
us. So at my urging, the three of us went back to that shop yesterday,
right before it closed. Then, as we were pulling up outside the shop, my
*other* partner expressed misgivings. This set off the partner who likes
to do research, and they played on each other's misgivings for about 10
minutes. I just sat there. Finally, I said: "You guys have both said it
would be okay to buy this DVD player. I'm going to go inside and buy it.
You can come with me if you want." So they followed me in, and after some
testing and talking, we bought it.
>It was a bit easier for us.
I'd imagine so. It usually is, for most people. ;-)
Jennie, who loves him anyway and is actually feeling all warm and fuzzy
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
rapie...@my-deja.com
Cause they are. Many opinions about facts are simply wrong as in not
consistant with verifiable facts.
>It's not an assertion of fact.
With due respect, that is wrong as well. You asserted "I find
monoamory unreasonable," free of context. That statement, free of
context,is and assertion of a false fact. Many reasonable people have
been and are monoamorous, such relationships often do work out well.
If you had added the qualification, "for me". I would accept that as a
statement of the fact of your opinion about what was ok for you.
Regardless it was a statement of fact as you said it. Factually
however monamory works for many people, as does polyamory.
> You can agree with it or disagree with it. For you to call it wrong
> is intolerance
Only intolerance of falsehood, which is in no way shape or form evil.
One should not pick out a word and assert meaning it does not have.
For example you seem to think that "intolerence" is uniformly evil.
Should we be tolerant of incompetent airline pilots? I don't think so.
Should we be tolerant of policemen who beat, rob and kill citizens on
the basis of race or sexual orientation? I don't think so. Should we
be tolerant of robbers? I think not.
Intolerence that is incorporated into law which is based upon ethnic or
sexual orientation is IMHO immoral, and should be rooted out, but
actually I think you are showing your intolerance of being disagreed
with in accusing JennieD-O'C of intolerance.
Facts are facts, opinions are opinions, and sometimes opinions and
facts happen to coincide if you work hard at being honest.
I am intolerent, I admit it. I am intolerent of lies, ignorance, and
falsehoods as I see them. Sometimes I am wrong, but I am willing to
admit it when I can be shown wrong.
---------snip---------------------
JennieD-O'C
>>It's not an assertion of fact.
>
>With due respect, that is wrong as well. You asserted "I find
>monoamory unreasonable," free of context. That statement, free of
>context,is and assertion of a false fact.
Actually, it's not -- it's an assertion of what Zen Cat believes. That
isn't a fact, false or otherwise. It's an assertion of belief. (I think
that may have been what Zen Cat was getting at when zie said to me that I
can't call the beliefs of zir and zir partner right or wrong.)
What I meant by "wrong" was "a product of faulty reasoning, and worded in
such a way that it's likely to provoke", not that it was a false fact.
(Thanks for giving me the opportunity to help clear this up.)
>Many reasonable people have been and are monoamorous, such relationships
>often do work out well.
Yeah, it's *that* I was getting at.
>Intolerence that is incorporated into law which is based upon ethnic or
>sexual orientation is IMHO immoral, and should be rooted out, but
>actually I think you are showing your intolerance of being disagreed
>with in accusing JennieD-O'C of intolerance.
I actually think Zen Cat just misunderstood me. But thanks. :-)
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
Zen Cat
> <rapie...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>It's not an assertion of fact.
> >
> >With due respect, that is wrong as well. You asserted "I find
> >monoamory unreasonable," free of context. That statement, free of
> >context,is and assertion of a false fact.
>
> Actually, it's not -- it's an assertion of what Zen Cat believes.
Yes.
> That isn't a fact, false or otherwise. It's an assertion of belief. (I think
> that may have been what Zen Cat was getting at when zie said to me that I
> can't call the beliefs of zir and zir partner right or wrong.)
Right. I did not declare "Monoamory is unreasonable, period." I
qualified it with "I find..." If I had said "I opine that monoamory
is unreasonable," would that have been satisfactory phrasing? How
about "IMHO?" Are we really down to picking at each other's wording?
If so, I will stop trying to defend myself in such cases, especially
where professional linguists are involved. That's an unfair
advantage, after all. ;-)
OBTW, you can stoppen-zie mit der neuter pronouns. I slipped up on
the gender-neutral lingo several posts ago, revealing that J is
female and that I, by inference from previous posts, am male. I am
male, 47, 5'9", ISO hot bi babes - oops! wrong newsgroup!
> What I meant by "wrong" was "a product of faulty reasoning, and worded in
> such a way that it's likely to provoke", not that it was a false fact.
> (Thanks for giving me the opportunity to help clear this up.)
I have no desire to provoke, and will strive not to do so. I seek
wisdom, understanding, and with a little luck, some support,
encouragement, and respect. I seek no argument (and I much prefer
levity to gravity). Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear
*that* up.
zen cat
JennieD-O'C
>Right. I did not declare "Monoamory is unreasonable, period." I
>qualified it with "I find..." If I had said "I opine that monoamory
>is unreasonable," would that have been satisfactory phrasing? How
>about "IMHO?"
It wouldn't have helped for me. (Old-timers, I've talked about this
before, so bear with me for just a paragraph or three.)
Let's take a couple of hypothetical sentences:
1. The movie "Gladiator" was poorly made.
2. In my opinion, the movie "Gladiator" was poorly made.
3. "Gladiator" wasn't my sort of movie.
My brain interprets #1 (and other completely unqualified statements like
it) as something like: "I think this was a bad movie, and I think of this
as a fact, not an opinion. How could anyone think differently?"
My brain interprets #2 (and other sentences with qualifiers that have
similar semantic content) as something like: "I think this was a bad
movie, and I know that's just an opinion, but I disagree with anyone who
has a different opinion." I think of qualifiers like this as qualifiers
of the "in my opinion" type.
My brain interprets #3 (and other sentences with qualifiers that have
similar semantic content) as something like: "I didn't really like the
movie, but that's really just a personal thing -- I can understand why
someone else might like it." I think of qualifiers like this as
qualifiers of the "for me" type.
It sounds to me like you're seeing the distinction between Type 1 and Type
2, but not the distinction between Type 2 and Type 3. So you're saying:
"Hey, I didn't just make a bald statement -- I qualified it by saying it
was my opinion." But I at least interpret your original sentence (with
the "in my opinion"-type-qualifier) as meaning: "I think monoamory is
unreasonable, and I know that's just an opinion, but I disagree with
anyone who has a different opinion."
You've since said that you meant to use a qualifier of the "for me" type,
that you only believe that monoamory is unreasonable for *you*, not that
it's unreasonable in general, in your opinion. And yet now you sound like
you really *did* mean to use the "in my opinion" type of qualifier. Can
you clarify that?
I know that some people think this is just nitpicking, but I really do
think the distinction is important. If I'm saying that something is bad
or wrong "in my opinion", then I'm still making a general statement. If
I'm saying that something is bad or wrong "for me", then I'm saying that I
know it's possible that that same thing could be perfectly valid for
someone else. I think this distinction is incredibly important when
people are having communication problems, because people react to things
they don't even know they're reacting to.
>Are we really down to picking at each other's wording?
I think wording is important when discussing how to improve someone's
communication. (Hey, I thought you *agreed* with that point of mine?) I
think if you use a lot of "in my opinion" qualifiers when talking to your
partner about polyamory and monogamy, and you really mean "for me"
qualifiers, that can lead your partner to think you're making blanket
statements that you don't really intend to make.
Don't look at it as "picking", look at it as constructive criticism. I'm
trying to help.
>If so, I will stop trying to defend myself in such cases, especially
>where professional linguists are involved. That's an unfair
>advantage, after all. ;-)
Not as unfair as you might think. My areas of professional expertise are
variation in phonology (sound systems) and language attitudes. Although
conversation analysis has sneaked in through the back-door by virtue of my
work with my co-author. Maybe in a couple of years I'll feel more
comfortable calling myself an expert in that. :-)
>OBTW, you can stoppen-zie mit der neuter pronouns. I slipped up on
>the gender-neutral lingo several posts ago, revealing that J is
>female and that I, by inference from previous posts, am male.
I knew the first part, but hadn't been able to infer the second part (you
hadn't let *that* cat out of the bag as far as I know; in fact, you didn't
even reply to me when I mentioned that I had interpreted you as female).
So noted, I'll change my pronoun for you. Thanks.
>I have no desire to provoke, and will strive not to do so. I seek
>wisdom, understanding, and with a little luck, some support,
>encouragement, and respect.
I don't know how much of that I can give you. I can give you some
support, at least. And respect is doable. What I'm hoping most to do,
though, is to help you to think in different ways. Ways that will maybe
help you communicate better with your partner. I don't know if I'm being
terribly successful, but the lucky thing about this medium is that if I'm
not, you'll at least have a lot of input from other people, too.
>I seek no argument (and I much prefer levity to gravity).
This newsgroup provides both quite well. I'm considering this thread to
be one of the "gravity" ones, though.
As for argument, isn't it better to get all of your arguments out of the
way here, so we can play devil's advocate for you, before you go and try
to talk to your partner about this again? :-)
piranha
>
> Speaking of DVD, everyone should go read the current issue of RISKS
> (http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/21.17.html), which contains an article
> about changing the way hard drives are manufactured to provide built-in
> copy protection. RMS's story comes closer to being true every day....
> (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html)
redirected to gnu.misc.discuss. :-)
--
-piranha
Gryph
> I've been monogamous. Although we did have a commitment not to get
> romantically and/or sexually involved with other people at that
point, we
> *never* expected each other to "meet all of our needs". (Are there
really
> monogamous people who expect this, or is this just a red herring
some
> polyfolk throw in when they're trying to diss monogamy?)
Unfortunately, there *are* mono folk who expect exactly this. My
husband is one of them. He feels threatened if I have a good, solid
*friendship* with anyone (of either sex), never mind any other
feelings towards another person.
He's of the camp that says "You divide your love." I'm of the camp
that says "You multiply it." So far we haven't come to a solution for
this.
<sigh>
--
Gryph
--It's not what you do or how you do it, but who you do it for that
counts.--
Aahz Maruch
Gryph <Gr...@altcastlenet.com> wrote:
>"JennieD-O'C" <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote in message
>>
>> I've been monogamous. Although we did have a commitment not to get
>> romantically and/or sexually involved with other people at that
>> point, we *never* expected each other to "meet all of our needs".
>> (Are there really monogamous people who expect this, or is this just
>> a red herring some polyfolk throw in when they're trying to diss
>> monogamy?)
>
>Unfortunately, there *are* mono folk who expect exactly this. My
>husband is one of them. He feels threatened if I have a good, solid
>*friendship* with anyone (of either sex), never mind any other feelings
>towards another person.
Ouch. That really sucks. I'll note that I've seen poly control freaks,
too, so I don't think it's directly related to monogamy.
BTW, I don't think I've seen you post before; if this is your first,
welcome to alt.poly!
rapie...@my-deja.com
jenn...@intranet.org wrote:
> <rapie...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>It's not an assertion of fact.
> >
> >With due respect, that is wrong as well. You asserted "I find
> >monoamory unreasonable," free of context. That statement, free of
> >context,is and assertion of a false fact.
>
> Actually, it's not -- it's an assertion of what Zen Cat believes.
Zen Cat states "I find monoamory unreasonable, while J finds polyamory
unreasonable."
All due respect, if I were to say "I find X(say some philosophy) to be
unreasonable" in my understanding of the english language, I would be
making a statement of fact. The fact that I think X it is
unreasonable. If I were to state something like that in a professional
or academic setting (I have been in both) I would be expected to back
up my "finding" with facts and reason.
I was mistaken in that I misread her exact words, I misremembered that
zencat said something more emphatic. I apologize.
Ben Okopnik
Aahz Maruch of alt.polyamory speaking thus:
>
>Speaking of DVD, everyone should go read the current issue of RISKS
>(http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/21.17.html), which contains an article
>about changing the way hard drives are manufactured to provide built-in
>copy protection. RMS's story comes closer to being true every day....
>(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html)
*Whoa*. Thanks for the heads-up, Aahz. I'm off to /. to check this out, and
raise a shitstorm if no one else has. These people are out of their damned
minds.
Ben "that shit just chilled my back teeth" Okopnik
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A Monarchist Credo: Practice safe government - use kingdoms.
Anarchist reply: Abstinence is the only way to be 100% sure.
Ben Okopnik
Aahz Maruch of alt.polyamory speaking thus:
>
>(http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/21.17.html), which contains an article
>about changing the way hard drives are manufactured to provide built-in
>copy protection.
Another followup to this: seems that nobody on Slashdot had brought this
up. I've just posted there, and got something like the following:
"Thanks for submitting this to Slashdot. Our group of trained squirrels
will examine it, prod it, poke at it, and hopefully post it. ..."
<Snort> All right, people. Fess up. Which one of you _here_ works _there_?
More to the point, whose *squirrels* work there?
Ben "AFAIK, /. does not have a squirrel union rep" Okopnik
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
When you're riding in a time machine way far into the future, don't stick
your elbow out the window, or it'll turn into a fossil. -- Jack Handey
Gryph
> Ouch. That really sucks. I'll note that I've seen poly control
freaks,
> too, so I don't think it's directly related to monogamy.
Oh, I'm sure it's not. In his case it's also cultural (he's
first-generation Mexican-American, I'm many-generations-American
white-girl), religious (he's Catholic, I'm pagan) and several other
things, one of which happens to be monoamory.
> BTW, I don't think I've seen you post before; if this is your first,
> welcome to alt.poly!
Thanks :) I've been lurking for about two years, and decided it was
time to get brave.
Obligatory offerings of chocolate orange truffles and spiced eggnog
are on the table in that direction -------------->
Josh Jasper
Ben Okopnik wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Ben "AFAIK, /. does not have a squirrel union rep" Okopnik
Hey, you can't work here without no union squirrels. This is a closed
shop, see?
--
The chief difficulty Alice found at first was in managing her flamingo.
-Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Tendyl
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, what do the women of your acquaintance say
> > on this subject, if you've asked them?
>
> Good question. Getting a little off topic from the main gist of this
> thread, but here goes.
>
> Disclaimer: these are my personal observations, and the sample size
> of women with whom I've spoken of this is small (less than 10, I
> think). I am presenting these as neither fact nor opinion. Just
> observations. Ergo, there's no point is agreeing or disagreeing with
> them. So there. I'll do this Letterman-style just for fun.
>
> 5. "Women are so much more physically attractive than men. I love my
> husband, but he ain't much to look at. I'd love to have a beautiful
> woman by my side as well."
>
> 4. "Women are so much more communicative than men. I wish I had
> another one in my household to talk womantalk with."
>
> 3. "My husband is a {lousy, inconsiderate, boring, impotent (pick
> one)} lover. I wish I could have another."
>
> 2. "I would like to combine the qualities of <several other men,
> usually including a real-life acquaintance and a handsome celebrity
> or two> into my one perfect man."
>
> And, the number one answer:
>
> 1. "One husband is more than sufficient. What the hell would I want
> another one for?"
>
> zen cat
>
Curiosity zen cat - what specifically did you ask the ladies?
Sometimes knowing the question helps in understanding the response.
Although I can give you a definite affirmative to a few of those...
Tendyl
Zen Cat
> All due respect, if I were to say "I find X(say some philosophy) to be
> unreasonable" in my understanding of the english language, I would be
> making a statement of fact. The fact that I think X it is
> unreasonable.
I'm about a nano away from dropping this whole thread on semantics,
because I'd really rather concentrate on polyamory.
"I find X to be unreasonable" is, to me, at least, a very different
type of "statement of fact" than "X is unreasonable."
zen cat
Bearpaw
> ...
>I've been monogamous. Although we did have a commitment not to get
>romantically and/or sexually involved with other people at that point, we
>*never* expected each other to "meet all of our needs". (Are there really
>monogamous people who expect this, or is this just a red herring some
>polyfolk throw in when they're trying to diss monogamy?)
There are people like that in monogamous relationships, but in my
experience they are the exception and not the rule. I consider it
a very extreme version of monogamy, and certainly it's not at all
useful to think of it as somehow indicative of monogamy in general.
Bearpaw
--
~~~~~~~~~~~ bea...@shore.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When you pass the buck, don't ask for change."
- Solomon Short
Bearpaw
>
>rapie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> All due respect, if I were to say "I find X(say some philosophy) to be
>> unreasonable" in my understanding of the english language, I would be
>> making a statement of fact. The fact that I think X it is
>> unreasonable.
>
>I'm about a nano away from dropping this whole thread on semantics,
>because I'd really rather concentrate on polyamory.
It's a newsgroup. Participating in it involves reading and writing.
You know, using words.
It's impossible to discuss *anything* without at least implicitly
discussing semantics.
While I'd be the first (or possibly the second or third) to admit that
it does sometimes get out of hand around here, you can't get away from
semantics. At most, you can only be oblivious to them, which I suspect
is generally not a good idea. Especially in a situation like yours.
Word choice is *important*.
Stef Maruch
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>"I find X to be unreasonable" is, to me, at least, a very different
>type of "statement of fact" than "X is unreasonable."
I consider them to be slightly different, not very different.
But only J's opinion on the matter really makes a difference. If J
thinks that you're judging her when you say "I find expecting monogamy
to be unreasonable," that is going to hamper your negotiations with her.
--
Stef
** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pessimists have already begun to worry about what is going to replace
automation. -- John Tudor
Zen Cat
because it's relevant.
JennieD-O'C wrote:
>
> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Right. I did not declare "Monoamory is unreasonable, period." I
> >qualified it with "I find..." If I had said "I opine that monoamory
> >is unreasonable," would that have been satisfactory phrasing? How
> >about "IMHO?"
>
> It wouldn't have helped for me. (Old-timers, I've talked about this
> before, so bear with me for just a paragraph or three.)
>
> Let's take a couple of hypothetical sentences:
(BTW, "a couple" means "two or an indefinite small number of." Bad
linguist. :-)
> 1. The movie "Gladiator" was poorly made.
> 2. In my opinion, the movie "Gladiator" was poorly made.
> 3. "Gladiator" wasn't my sort of movie.
>
> My brain interprets #1 (and other completely unqualified statements like
> it) as something like: "I think this was a bad movie, and I think of this
> as a fact, not an opinion. How could anyone think differently?"
>
> My brain interprets #2 (and other sentences with qualifiers that have
> similar semantic content) as something like: "I think this was a bad
> movie, and I know that's just an opinion, but I disagree with anyone who
> has a different opinion." I think of qualifiers like this as qualifiers
> of the "in my opinion" type.
>
> My brain interprets #3 (and other sentences with qualifiers that have
> similar semantic content) as something like: "I didn't really like the
> movie, but that's really just a personal thing -- I can understand why
> someone else might like it." I think of qualifiers like this as
> qualifiers of the "for me" type.
>
> It sounds to me like you're seeing the distinction between Type 1 and Type
> 2, but not the distinction between Type 2 and Type 3. So you're saying:
> "Hey, I didn't just make a bald statement -- I qualified it by saying it
> was my opinion." But I at least interpret your original sentence (with
> the "in my opinion"-type-qualifier) as meaning: "I think monoamory is
> unreasonable, and I know that's just an opinion, but I disagree with
> anyone who has a different opinion."
I see the distinction, but, like all discourse, it's open to
interpretation. Here's an alternate interpretation:
#2: "I think this was a bad movie, that's my opinion, but I'm
willing to discuss alternate opinions if you wish to present some.
Maybe you'll change my mind."
#3: "I didn't like that movie; maybe you did, but I'm not even
interested enough to talk about it."
> You've since said that you meant to use a qualifier of the "for me" type,
> that you only believe that monoamory is unreasonable for *you*, not that
> it's unreasonable in general, in your opinion. And yet now you sound like
> you really *did* mean to use the "in my opinion" type of qualifier. Can
> you clarify that?
Ginger or Mary Ann? Both!
Monoamory is not for me. In my opinion, it imposes expectations on
its participants which may prove unachievable or unsustainable.
See what I mean? The first sentence invites no further discourse,
while the second does. Maybe I'll break this down a little more just
to avoid starting another semantic argument.
Fact: monoamory imposes expectations on its participants.
Opinion: monoamory imposes expectations on its participants which
may prove unachievable or unsustainable, depending on the
participants.
Conclusion: knowing myself as well as I do, monoamory is not for me.
> As for argument, isn't it better to get all of your arguments out of the
> way here, so we can play devil's advocate for you, before you go and try
> to talk to your partner about this again? :-)
Absolutely. But if we must argue, can't we please argue about
philosophy instead of semantics? I take your point about phrasing,
OK?
As background (as if anyone's interested), I graduated from a
prestigious institute of technurdegy with a major in artificial
intelligence and a minor in cognitive psychology. My thesis
concerned computational linguistics - finding heuristics for
resolving ambiguity in an area of limited discourse, the natural
language control of a robot arm. ("Put the red block next to the
yellow block. Put the green block on top of it." Now determine how
to instruct a computer to determine the referent of the word "it.")
I used to play WFF'n'Proof (a game of symbolic logic) for fun. But
that was a long time ago and and frankly, I'm tired of intellectual
mind games of that sort. I'd much rather discuss love.
zen cat
JennieD-O'C
>Monoamory is not for me. In my opinion, it imposes expectations on
>its participants which may prove unachievable or unsustainable.
>
>See what I mean? The first sentence invites no further discourse,
>while the second does.
I think you're right when you're talking about discourse in this
newsgroup, but if you're talking to your partner, I think both sentences
invite further discourse.
"Monoamory is not for me", when voiced to a partner who wants to be in a
monogamous relationship, invites discourse like:
1. "This worries me, because I'm afraid you won't be happy if you stay
with me and I demand a monogamous relationship. I'd like to talk about
that worry, and how we might deal with it."
2. "And polyamory is not for me. This is a big problem; can we talk about
reaching a compromise where we both get some of what we want? Maybe if we
each break down what we want out of polyamory and monogamy, respectively,
we can figure out what we most want out of the respective relationship
styles, and we can each give a little on those points."
Your other sentence, "In my opinion, it imposes expectations on its
participants which may prove unachievable or unsustainable", is much less
of a conversation starter in the context of trying to solve problems in a
relationship. If I were your partner, and you said that to me, I'd
probably get defensive and think you were trying to push me into thinking
that my preferred relationship style was just inferior. Even if I didn't,
I'd wonder what the point was of bringing that up. It certainly doesn't
help solve a relationship impasse that involves two people that prefer
different relationship styles.
>Fact: monoamory imposes expectations on its participants.
Incidentally, so does polyamory, in every case I've seen or been on the
inside of. The expectations are just different (usually).
Zen Cat
Not so much one particular question, but more of the kind of
wishful-thinking/philosophical discussions usually depicted with
people lying supine in a field looking at clouds. In the case of an
almost-poly woman friend/lover, it all kind of started with "what am
I doing here with you [meaning me] at this place and time?" And
conversation progressed from there.
In another case, discussion ensued from the observation that most
people, male and female, would rather look at women than men.
(What's on the covers of men's magazines? Women. What's on the
covers of women's magazines? Women.) Which led to discussions of FMF
triads, followed by MFM triads, etc.
All very wistful and mostly theoretical.
In one non-theoretical case ("my husband is unable to make love to
me because of physiological medical issues"), a friend and I enjoyed
a very occasional lovemaking relationship (sort of the "Same Time
Next Year" thing, if you remember that movie). It ended up being her
devout Catholic beliefs about sin and subsequent guilt which caused
her to back out of it.
So it all varied quite a bit with the womenfolk. Sorry I can't be
more specific.
With my monogamous male friends, it's more consistent. I don't even
have to ask any questions. The statement I hear is usually "I love
my wife but I wish I weren't stuck with one woman." Sure, most men
have a fantasy built around that concept, but I hear it so
consistently that I conclude that there's more than just fantasy at
work there.
> Although I can give you a definite affirmative to a few of those...
Now I'm curious. Which did you agree & disagree with?
zen cat
John Clark
John Clark
JennieD-O'C wrote:
>
> 1. The movie "Gladiator" was poorly made.
> 2. In my opinion, the movie "Gladiator" was poorly made.
> 3. "Gladiator" wasn't my sort of movie.
>
> My brain interprets #1 (and other completely unqualified statements like
> it) as something like: "I think this was a bad movie, and I think of this
> as a fact, not an opinion. How could anyone think differently?"
I would have to be 'hearing in person' to detect 'how could anyone think
differently'. I would also have to know the person's position for
making a statement like that. For example, from a filmmaker's point
of view (not necessarily in Gladiator's case) the movie could be 'bad'.
In the film critic's pov the film could be 'bad'. In the common parlance
of 'bad' is 'good', the speaker could be actually saying the movie
is quite good...
In point of fact, the movie did have the usual holes that many hysterical
novels/films have... such as time skew relative to characters 'real
life'(tm),
indicating relationships between characters which may not have existed,
or exploiting ambiguous relationships to highten either 'loving' the
character or 'hating' the character... etc.
I could therefore say, because of these reasons, the movie is 'bad'. As it
was I did like the movie, but it could have just as well involved 'klingons',
or 'name your favorite force of the universe'... as romans in Vindobona
vs them germains...
I think of these statements as 'approximately factual', and yes, someone
would have to argue with me as to why they think the story is so
unique as to only be cast in that period, with those historical figures
interacting and coming to the eventual conclusion the way the movie
developed.
I of course think of most statements to be open to contest... so the
fact that someone makes a statement which they indicate explicitly,
or which I infer by their delivery, as incontrovertable
doesn't phase me a bit if I wish to controver...
Aahz Maruch
Okay, fine. If you can define "love", I expect most people here would
be happy to defer to your wishes and skip arguing semantics. If you
can't define "love", you might consider the possibility that semantics
are indeed critical, especially in a forum where all communication is
done in writing.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2000 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Ninth Virtual Anniversary: 3 days and counting
Zen Cat
> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Monoamory is not for me. In my opinion, it imposes expectations on
> >its participants which may prove unachievable or unsustainable.
> >
> >See what I mean? The first sentence invites no further discourse,
> >while the second does.
>
> I think you're right when you're talking about discourse in this
> newsgroup, but if you're talking to your partner, I think both sentences
> invite further discourse.
Agreed!
zen cat
Zen Cat
>
> In article <3A4B8BD6...@pacbell.net>,
> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >I'd much rather discuss love.
>
> Okay, fine. If you can define "love", I expect most people here would
> be happy to defer to your wishes and skip arguing semantics. If you
> can't define "love", you might consider the possibility that semantics
> are indeed critical, especially in a forum where all communication is
> done in writing.
No argument there. Semantics are indeed critical in this medium. I
just prefer not to have them be the main topic of discussion. Lucky
for me, J is not a semanticist. :-)
Define "love?" Hoo boy, wanna open that can o' worms? Here is my
long-standing favorite. I can't remember its origin, but I'll bet
that someone out there can. (Oh, please tell me it's not RAH in
TEFL, which I haven't read for years. Well, even if it is, I still
like it.)
Love is a state of mind in which the happiness of another person is
essential to your own.
Please don't ask me to define "state of mind," "happiness," or
"essential."
zen cat
Aahz Maruch
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Define "love?" Hoo boy, wanna open that can o' worms? Here is my
>long-standing favorite. I can't remember its origin, but I'll bet
>that someone out there can. (Oh, please tell me it's not RAH in
>TEFL, which I haven't read for years. Well, even if it is, I still
>like it.)
>
>Love is a state of mind in which the happiness of another person is
>essential to your own.
Bzzzt! TEFL it is. And *lots* of people disagree with that definition.
Zen Cat
> Bzzzt! TEFL it is.
Rats.
> And *lots* of people disagree with that definition.
Lots of people disagree with everything. What's your definition?
zen cat
Russ Allbery
> Lots of people disagree with everything. What's your definition?
Love is this... this *thing*, you know?
Seriously. That's about as good of a definition as I think I can put
together for most emotions. It's a word attached to a way one feels.
Trying to define it more specifically is sort of like trying to define
"sad" or "angry." One can talk about the external manifestations of the
emotions, and from that try to spark parallels with emotions that the
person one is communicating with has also felt and jump to understanding
that way, but I don't think there's a real scientific definition to be
found.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Zen Cat
>
> Love is this... this *thing*, you know?
>
> Seriously. That's about as good of a definition as I think I can put
> together for most emotions. It's a word attached to a way one feels.
> Trying to define it more specifically is sort of like trying to define
> "sad" or "angry." One can talk about the external manifestations of the
> emotions, and from that try to spark parallels with emotions that the
> person one is communicating with has also felt and jump to understanding
> that way, but I don't think there's a real scientific definition to be
> found.
I can relate to what you're saying. But when you tell somebody "I
love you," there is a message there and a meaning which you are
attempting to convey. What is that? I mean, if you tell someone "I
feel this... this *thing* for you," it probably won't get your
message across very well.
It's probably like that old story about the number of Eskimo words
for "snow." The Greeks at least had some more specific terms like
"eros" and "agape" and undoubtedly others I've forgotten or never
heard of.
Oy. Why did I let Aahz bait me into this? :-o Once I'm back at work
next week I won't have nearly this much time on my hands.
zen cat
JennieD-O'C
>It's probably like that old story about the number of Eskimo words
>for "snow."
What, you mean a widely-believed myth? :-)
cf. http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/Misc/eskimo-snow-words.html
rapie...@my-deja.com
Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> rapie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > All due respect, if I were to say "I find X(say some philosophy) to
be
> > unreasonable" in my understanding of the english language, I would
be
> > making a statement of fact. The fact that I think X it is
> > unreasonable.
>
> I'm about a nano away from dropping this whole thread on semantics,
> because I'd really rather concentrate on polyamory.
Agree, but I want to be clear on what you mean. Sorry if that offends.
>
> "I find X to be unreasonable" is, to me, at least, a very different
> type of "statement of fact" than "X is unreasonable."
Agreed. But more different still is "In my opinion X is
unreasonable." As opinions need not be defended, while a finding
should be defendable with logic and facts.
piranha
[ love ]
yup. (i am one who disagrees with RAH. frequently. :-)
> What's your definition?
i knows it when i feels it.
seriously. i can't come up with a definition that works for me,
nevermind one that would work as a general one.
i _can_ talk about actions in response to it, how i want to
connect with other people when i feel love for them. how much i
can change that before i feel as if my love is being stifled,
before something essential is taken away.
semantics are important because they touch on precisely this --
they circumscribe the spaces between us, and allow me to connect
to other people for the purpose of exchanging thoughts.
and in this medium, that's the only way i can connect.
--
-piranha
Russ Allbery
> I can relate to what you're saying. But when you tell somebody "I love
> you," there is a message there and a meaning which you are attempting to
> convey. What is that? I mean, if you tell someone "I feel this... this
> *thing* for you," it probably won't get your message across very well.
Well, I'm going farther and farther out on limbs here, but my initial
reaction is that the statement "I love you" is something that's very
context-dependent on the relationship. In other words, once I'm at the
point where I'd say that to someone, it's with the expectation that we've
communicated well enough emotionally that they'd know what I meant by it.
It may mean something completely different when said to one person than
when said to another.
piranha
<92e5os$6f4ef$1...@ID-15901.news.dfncis.de>:
>"JennieD-O'C" <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote in message
>
>> I've been monogamous. Although we did have a commitment not to get
>> romantically and/or sexually involved with other people at that point,
>> we *never* expected each other to "meet all of our needs". (Are there
>> really monogamous people who expect this, or is this just a red herring
>> some polyfolk throw in when they're trying to diss monogamy?)
>
> husband is one of them. He feels threatened if I have a good, solid
> *friendship* with anyone (of either sex), never mind any other
> feelings towards another person.
yup. my partner in my first relationship was like this as well.
any friendship beyond the casual was suspect and threatening to
"us". it's wasn't directly about needs fulfillment, it was more
an issue of inferiority, fear of loss, and of loyalty.
i am in a sexually exclusive relationship now that is in no other
way monogamous. world of difference.
> He's of the camp that says "You divide your love." I'm of the camp
> that says "You multiply it."
i am in neither camp. :-) i think either is possible. there are
people for whom other involvements divide, if not the feelings,
then at least the time, intensity, or effort with which they
express them. there are others who feel spurred to more such
expression. there are some who realize they have missed some-
thing in a prior relationship because they didn't realize it could
be had, and that ended the prior relationship. they are those for
whom the new relationship is a catalyst to invigorate the old one,
and the new one gets discarded if that has happened.
> So far we haven't come to a solution for this.
oy. how are you going about trying to find one, if i may ask?
welcome to alt.polyamory, btw.
--
-piranha
piranha
>
> I'm about a nano away from dropping this whole thread on semantics,
> because I'd really rather concentrate on polyamory.
*shrug*. suit yourself. the rest of us will probably happily
continue. i'll admit that we sometimes go too far, but this ain't
even close yet for me. :-)
how in the world can anyone expect to have good communication with
a partner about polyamory, if the semantic issues aren't cleared
up as they arise? this is a great place to practice, i find, for
i have less at stake here. besides which, somebody's definitions
might provide an insight i haven't previously had, as to why i get
stuck on something. (witness the "mine" discussion.)
my partners and i, since i became smart enough to pick partners
good for me, have always engaged in a fair amount of talk about
how we mean things. i fail to see what, other than mind reading,
could result in a truly positive outcome to a misunderstanding.
and i don't read minds well at all, despite occasional stunning
exceptions.
> "I find X to be unreasonable" is, to me, at least, a very different
> type of "statement of fact" than "X is unreasonable."
different for me too, as in, i give the speaker more benefit of
the doubt in the first case, usually.
but "i find blacks to be more stupid than whites" isn't by any
means truly less objectionable to me than "blacks are more stupid
than whites" (offensive statement chosen on purpose to make the
point clearer).
i have a bit of a snarky reaction to people who think it takes but
the addition of "i think" or "for me" to an otherwise questionable
opinion to make it somehow less questionable. in my experience
that sort of practice is often just weaseling, and what the person
really thinks is "X is a statement of fact, or an opinion that any
right-thinking person shares, and if you don't, you're weird, but
i'll humour you by throwing the weasel words in".
the expression "weasel word" comes about from such people, i
think. to me "i think", "in my opinion", "i wonder if" are _not_
weasel words, they are truly how i feel about an issue.
--
-piranha
Owenbrau
>i knows it when i feels it.
Isn't that also the US Supreme Court definition of pornography? ;-)
Owen
"May be going to Hell in a bucket,
but at least I'm enjoying the ride..."
John Clark
piranha wrote:
> Zen Cat <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote in <3A4BD91E...@pacbell.net>:
> [ love ]
> > Lots of people disagree with everything.
>
> yup. (i am one who disagrees with RAH. frequently. :-)
>
> > What's your definition?
>
> i knows it when i feels it.
dooo tell... but this sounds like the famous defintion of obscenity...
I know it when I see it... so therefore one can never know apriori
what 'love' or 'obscenity' is... one must do, and judge afterwards...
But i can list at least one class of acts that I in no way associate
with 'love', namely violence to the person...
Rivka
"Zen Cat" <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3A4BD599...@pacbell.net...
> Aahz Maruch wrote:
> > Okay, fine. If you can define "love", I expect most people
> > here would be happy to defer to your wishes and skip
> > arguing semantics.
>
> Love is a state of mind in which the happiness of another
> person is essential to your own.
You know, I read Aahz's challenge this afternoon from work, and I set
my stopwatch. Just to see how long it would take for the inevitable
Lazarus Long quotation to be trotted out.
This isn't meant to be a slam at you, Zen Cat. I'm just *tired* of
that thing. It's glib and easy to quote - look how quickly it rose to
Zen Cat's mind, even though, from the surrounding bits, zie doesn't
appear to be a major Heinlein fan. But I think it's superficial. I've
known too many people to reel it off and figure that they've examined
what there is to examine about love.
I'm tired of it, and it upsets me, too - because
[alert space: very sad stuff ahead]
I loved a woman once who wasn't happy. Not *ever* happy, at least, in
a deep-down lasting satisfied way. She had a horrible miserable awful
case of clinical depression that lasted for years, and she killed
herself over it, while we were together. <deep breath>
But I had times of happiness, while I loved her. Deep-down, lasting,
satisfied happiness... although of *course* of course at other times I
was miserably sick with worry for her. And after she died, after I
mourned, eventually I was happy again.
So by the logic of Heinlein's quote, I didn't love her. Right? The
"essential" condition of her happiness was lacking, and yet I was
happy, and so.
What a lousy chain of reasoning. What a cruel chain of reasoning. And
*every time* love gets discussed, someone hauls the damned thing out
again.
Rivka
who, actually, had no idea how strongly she felt about this.
--
Rivka is riv...@home.com and a resident in clinical health psychology.
Partium magnarum Europa vincendarum interdum cupidine feror.
Jim Roberts
Owenbrau wrote:
> piranha wrote:
>
> >i knows it when i feels it.
>
> Isn't that also the US Supreme Court definition of pornography? ;-)
> Owen
Exactly. And their definition of voting, but they never saw nor felt
the cards.
piranha... it is too easy to attack her, beneath my dignity, unless
called upon
jimbat, under an illegitimate president
back to the 60s!
John Clark
Rivka wrote:
> "Zen Cat" <zen...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3A4BD599...@pacbell.net...
> > Aahz Maruch wrote:
>
> > > Okay, fine. If you can define "love", I expect most people
> > > here would be happy to defer to your wishes and skip
> > > arguing semantics.
> >
> > Love is a state of mind in which the happiness of another
> > person is essential to your own.
>
> You know, I read Aahz's challenge this afternoon from work, and I set
> my stopwatch. Just to see how long it would take for the inevitable
> Lazarus Long quotation to be trotted out.
I don't know if Eric Fromm's one line definition has better
implications...
"Love should be essentially an act of will, of a decision to
commit my life completely to that of one other person".
The central words for the moment is 'commit... compiletely', I think
one could still come up questioning one's love in the face of
the loved one taking their life, as in 'perhaps I didn't commit
completely
enough'. (I'll also note the 'one other person'... but I digress for the
moment...)
Alternatively, the 'commit ... completely' could equally be used to
stay in an abusive relationship, as that's what 'commit ... completely'
means... doesn't it???