Newbie ponders: Why poly?
heather e blair
In article <jdiehl-2708...@sf-168.activa.net>,
Jeff Diehl <jdi...@activa.net> wrote:
>The primary reason I'm considering polyamory is that I detest
>codependency, and I see the traditional, monogamous, exclusive
>relationship as the perfect embodiment of codependency on a cultural
>level. While I'm not so naive as to think that poly automatically
>eliminates codependency, I do see it as a tool for healthy intimacy, an
>alternative to the traditional relationship model.
>
>But my personality is such that I often become exhausted if I lack alone
>time and have to focus too much on interpersonal stuff. I've recently
>detected a slight shift in this aspect of myself, becoming more social
>with friends, making new friends, etc. But the introvert is still there,
>and I nourish it.
You might consider being somebody's secondary partner -- I've considered
that myself because I also need a lot of "alone" time, and at the time
I felt that I would be swallowed up in a primary (especially a monogamous
primary) relationship.
>If poly allows me to escape the trap of codependency by allowing me to
>distribute my intimacy needs, and therefore eliminating the stress and
>pressure involved with demanding all of my needs from one person (and
>providing all of another's needs), then I would like to explore it. I do
>NOT believe affection exists in a static amount, and I also believe that
>*quality* of time is primary over *quantitiy* of time.
Are you worried about your partner becoming needy and demanding or
yourself becoming needy and demanding? Or both? (In my case, it's
both!) Some forms of polyamory might also feel overwhelming -- I
don't think I'd like to be the vertex in a vee, but I often think
I might want to be one of the "legs". (But I could be wrong).
Also, monogamous relationships don't have to be "co-dependent" (which
I'm taking to mean smothering, lack of interpersonal boundaries,
and a lot of whining and neediness on everyone's part). If you get
an independent partner who also likes solitude, or who has a good
network of friends and hobbies, that might work for you, too.
--
urngure r oynve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
a line longer than hexameter becomes a colourless slurry of fubarred phonemes
-T.S.
Noel Lynne Figart (aka neko-chan)
On 27 Aug 1997 18:12:24 GMT, jdi...@activa.net (Jeff Diehl) spouted in
a burst of profound wisdom:
>Coming from a primarily introverted background, and seeing that many of
>the poeple posting here convey their preference for having "lots of
>people" in their life, because they just like having people around as
>opposed to being alone, I wonder if there are some out there who have
>different motives.
I am certainly an introvert. I require lots of time alone or I, also,
am exhausted.
>
>The primary reason I'm considering polyamory is that I detest
>codependency, and I see the traditional, monogamous, exclusive
>relationship as the perfect embodiment of codependency on a cultural
>level. While I'm not so naive as to think that poly automatically
>eliminates codependency, I do see it as a tool for healthy intimacy, an
>alternative to the traditional relationship model.
>
Poly can force you to examine things you might let slide in a
monogamous relationship. This might, indeed, combat the problem of
co-dependancy.
>But my personality is such that I often become exhausted if I lack alone
>time and have to focus too much on interpersonal stuff. I've recently
>detected a slight shift in this aspect of myself, becoming more social
>with friends, making new friends, etc. But the introvert is still there,
>and I nourish it.
That is wise. Poly and introversion are not necessarily opposites.
>
>If poly allows me to escape the trap of codependency by allowing me to
>distribute my intimacy needs, and therefore eliminating the stress and
>pressure involved with demanding all of my needs from one person (and
>providing all of another's needs), then I would like to explore it. I do
>NOT believe affection exists in a static amount, and I also believe that
>*quality* of time is primary over *quantitiy* of time.
I think that a very needy person can still have his problems with
polyamory. You see, you can choose to be needy more of the time
without exhausting partners so badly. This might actually prevent you
from confronting the issue as quickly as you might.
Noel, Axe of the BABs, Mum to King of the Babies
and She who truly Groks Coffee.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/6418
"The best solution to oppressive and bigotted behavior is rarely
to respond exactly the same way to the "group" seen as doing it."
KAZ Vorpal
bikerbabe in black leather
In article <EFL6u...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
heather e blair <h4...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <jdiehl-2708...@sf-168.activa.net>,
>Jeff Diehl <jdi...@activa.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>time and have to focus too much on interpersonal stuff. I've recently
>>detected a slight shift in this aspect of myself, becoming more social
>>with friends, making new friends, etc. But the introvert is still there,
>>and I nourish it.
>
>that myself because I also need a lot of "alone" time, and at the time
>I felt that I would be swallowed up in a primary (especially a monogamous
>primary) relationship.
I am a lot like that as well. My solution has been to partner with
people who don't require me to be there all the time and be everything
for them. My primary partner doesn't make me feel smothered or
subsumed in any way and it's been a very refreshing change for me.
I've come to realize that I simply should not become seriouly involved
with people who require more of me than I am comfortable giving because
it's most likely not going to work out regardless of how compatible we
might be otherwise.
So I look for that in partners. The things I describe above aren't
universally negative, don't mistake me, they work well for many
people, and to those people I wish them luck and happiness. But it
doesn't work for me, and quite frankly, gives me the willies thinking
about it.
--
Anmar Mirza #Chief of Tranquility#I'm a cheap date, but an expensive pet.
EMT-D TBTW10#Base, Lawrence Co. #How many vegetables die for a glass of V8?
N9ISY (tech)#Somewhere out on the#Have sawmill, will travel.
EOL DoD#1147#Mirza Ranch.#http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~amirza/home.html
bikerbabe in black leather
In article <340515...@FlyingGuy.com>,
Bill Sappington <Bi...@FlyingGuy.Com> wrote:
>Aahz,
>
>I have tried to mellow and to even respond to you in decent terms in a
>couple of posts and even once on the SF-Bay poly mail list, but I see
>you still want to take pot shots. You are an asshole and a jerk.
My irony meter just pegged.
>Please dont ever respond to anything I have to say, even again.
Y'know, one of the great things about posting publicly to a newsgroup
is that you're open to anyone making any type of response. Even
better is the fact that the only thing you can do about it if it
bothers you is either ignore it, or not read people who upset you.
Being able to remain civil in the face of adversity is a sign of
maturity.
Now, I'm going to tell you this next bit because everyone deserves an
opportunity to see how they affect others:
I rarely read much of what you have to say, much of the time because
it's on topics or in threads in which I am not interested. I have on
various occasions when I have read you agreed with you, sympathized
with you, and disagreed with you, and on several occasions thought you
stepped out of the bounds of rational discourse (and just because the
person with whom you were conversing may have done so as well is
irrelevant).
But I am seriously considering putting you in my killfile. I rarely
put people in a killfile, and never simply because I disagree with
them. I tell you this not because I think it's any big thing to you
that I might do so, I'm well aware that it's not. I tell you this
because if I, someone who doesn't often killfile people, have decided
to do so, it's a pretty good indicator that your posting style
probably has a similar effect on a lot of people, and you probably
aren't getting read by nearly as many folk as you could be otherwise.
Also know that in telling you this I bear you no animosity, I rarely
tell someone when I killfile them.
Jeff Diehl
In article <EFL6u...@midway.uchicago.edu>, h4...@midway.uchicago.edu
(heather e blair) wrote:
> You might consider being somebody's secondary partner -- I've considered
> that myself because I also need a lot of "alone" time, and at the time
> I felt that I would be swallowed up in a primary (especially a monogamous
> primary) relationship.
That's probably an excellent suggestion, since I have almost no capacity
for jealousy. This is largely due to the fact that I don't get into
serious relationships with anyone until I trust that they are who they
claim to be. But, even with other aspects of my personality, the secondary
role sounds like one I might enjoy, at least for a while.
> Are you worried about your partner becoming needy and demanding or
> yourself becoming needy and demanding? Or both? (In my case, it's
> both!) Some forms of polyamory might also feel overwhelming -- I
> don't think I'd like to be the vertex in a vee, but I often think
> I might want to be one of the "legs". (But I could be wrong).
The concern is mostly for my partner, partly for me. It's against my
nature to become co-dependent, but that hasn't stopped me in the past
allowing a co-dependent relationship from continuing; as a result, I take
out pent-up resentment on my partner, feel terrible about *that* on top of
the frustration regarding the relationship, etc... It just snowballs from
there.
> Also, monogamous relationships don't have to be "co-dependent" (which
> I'm taking to mean smothering, lack of interpersonal boundaries,
> and a lot of whining and neediness on everyone's part). If you get
> an independent partner who also likes solitude, or who has a good
> network of friends and hobbies, that might work for you, too.
True perhaps, but if a person is so independent, they should be open to
polyamory anyway (seems to me). I have a need for deep levels of
intimacy, while having a basically introverted, introspective personality.
I don't know if a single relationship would be enough (I have quite a few
active friendships) on a more removed level. I'd just prefer to be able to
get all forms of intimacy from all of my friends, and let the particular
relationships fluctuate along a spectrum of intimacy as time goes on,
according to the changing needs of everyone. :-)
-Jeff
--
San Francisco Epicureans
http://www.epicureans.org/
--------------------------
"We must not compel nature but persuade her; and we shall persuade her by fulfilling the necessary desires, and the natural ones if they do no harm, but harshly rebuking the harmful ones." -Epicurus
piranha
>the poeple posting here convey their preference for having "lots of
>people" in their life, because they just like having people around as
>opposed to being alone, I wonder if there are some out there who have
>different motives.
sure. i am introverted, and i don't have a preference for
having "lots of people" in my life -- i have a strong pre-
ference for deep, close relationships. i simply don't think
there is only one such person for me in this world, and if
my path crosses with more than one at a time, i much prefer
to carry on meaningful relationships with all than ditch one
or another.
>The primary reason I'm considering polyamory is that I detest
>codependency, and I see the traditional, monogamous, exclusive
>relationship as the perfect embodiment of codependency on a cultural
>level.
good grief. co-dependency is not inherent to monogamy. i
am in a fabulous monogamous relationship at this time, and
we couldn't be further from co-dependency if we tried. i
am beginning to think this is a buzzword du jour which is
about as useful as "politically correct" now that everyone
tosses it about at leisure.
if you are a person tending to co-dependency, you will do
so in a poly relationship just as well as in a mono one.
treat the co-dependency; a change of relationship style is
not gonna fix that problem.
>While I'm not so naive as to think that poly automatically
>eliminates codependency, I do see it as a tool for healthy intimacy, an
>alternative to the traditional relationship model.
polyamory isn't a tool. it's an approach to relationships.
you can have healthy intimacy in monogamous relationships;
heck, you can have it without designated "relationships".
polyamory will not guarantee healthiness; it will, if any-
thing, make things slightly more complex in general, so if
you couldn't manage a healthy relationship before, you will
quite likely not do so in a polyamorous situation either.
tho it is of course possible that you're polyamorous as
an orientation (of which existence i am not entirely con-
vinced yet), and simply feel inherently "wrong" about being
monogamous.
i am not criticizing you personally, btw -- but you are re-
peating stuff we hear rather frequently, and i react quite
vigorously against the notion that polyamory is inherently
superior to other styles of relationships. that's an illu-
sion. polyamory can blow up just as badly as monogamy, and
monogamy can be nurturing and healthy and fulfilling.
>But my personality is such that I often become exhausted if I lack alone
>time and have to focus too much on interpersonal stuff.
then poly will likely be _more_ work for you than mono, cuz
instead of one partner with whom you share your time there
will be more than one, and you will likely end up having less
time for yourself.
it's possible to have a monogamous relationship and not be
eaten up by it. heck, it's not even all that hard if you
just look for the right partner. i have all the alone time
i want, and my partner is just fine with that. even if i
had another partner just like zir, i would end up with less
alone time -- the problem wouldn't be with my partners but
with the finite amount of time in a day.
what might be ideal in your situation could be a secondary
or tertiary relationship, where you are not placed in the
role of a primary partner and all the assumptions that can
come with that. the mono world has an equivalent; when
people date "non-exclusively", tho that's supposed to be
a phase before or between primary partners -- heck, nobody
forces you to make it a phase. :-) there are people who're
quite happy in a very loose web of occasional pals&lovers.
there is a price to pay for that, of course, but you might
not mind if you are very solitary.
i used to live like that for years.
>I've recently
>detected a slight shift in this aspect of myself, becoming more social
>with friends, making new friends, etc. But the introvert is still there,
>and I nourish it.
you might well need to nourish it. i derive all my energy
from my alone time. i have my most original thoughts when
i am by myself; i do my best work on my own. i _like_ other
people, mind you, but in small doses. and so i have a few
close friends, all but one of whom now live thousands of
miles away from me. i miss them, but i stay in touch, and
i am happy this way. there are months when all my social
interaction takes places over the net.
>If poly allows me to escape the trap of codependency by allowing me to
>distribute my intimacy needs, and therefore eliminating the stress and
>pressure involved with demanding all of my needs from one person (and
>providing all of another's needs), then I would like to explore it.
i am not sure what you define as "co-dependency". i can see
the wish to not rely on any one person for all one's needs
(which i consider healthy), and the unwillingness to be the
one and only and everything for somebody else (with which i
can empathize strongly). sure, polyamory might be something
for you. but be aware that you might well be trading one sort
of stress for others. :-) it is not a panacea.
>I do
>NOT believe affection exists in a static amount, and I also believe that
>*quality* of time is primary over *quantitiy* of time.
agree with this, in general (tho there is of course a finite
amount of time available, and most people have a limit to how
much affection they can dole out and handle, even if that
amount may not be specifically measurable at any point in
time).
-piranha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
please help fight spam -- http://www.cauce.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aahz
{riiip}
In article <jdiehl-2808...@sf-165.activa.net>,
Jeff Diehl <jdi...@activa.net> wrote:
>
>San Francisco Epicureans
>http://www.epicureans.org/
This site appears to be dead.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
I don't really mind a person having the last whine, but I do mind
someone else having the last self-righteous whine.
Elf Sternberg
In article <jdiehl-2708...@sf-168.activa.net>
jdi...@activa.net (Jeff Diehl) writes:
>If poly allows me to escape the trap of codependency by allowing me to
>distribute my intimacy needs, and therefore eliminating the stress and
>pressure involved with demanding all of my needs from one person (and
>providing all of another's needs), then I would like to explore it. I do
>NOT believe affection exists in a static amount, and I also believe that
>*quality* of time is primary over *quantitiy* of time.
> Any thoughts?
Yeah. Quality time is a lie.
More succinctly, how much "quality time" do you spend with
people? A minute? An hour? Is that enough for your lovers?
I've learned the hard way that for some people, all of your time
isn't enough, and for others that when "quality time" goes on too
long they start to chomp at the bit and want for quality time with
themselves and not with you.
Polyamory doesn't allow you to escape the needs of your partners,
if that's what you're looking for. If anything, it makes the pressure
to attend to two sets of needs even greater because not only are there
two sets of needs but there are no social expectations, no fundamental
habits of interaction, built around polyamory. You're writing your own
map here, and that takes work. Whether you're looking for a dyad to
join or for someone to join your own dyad, you're still looking at
the responsibilities of maintaining a relationship-- more than one
relationship, even-- and you're still looking at judging for yourself
the depth of your relationship.
You can give all the quality time *you* want, but if it's not
enough to meet what the other person needs from you then nothing else
you do is going to make the relationship work.
Elf !!!
--
Elf Sternberg Balkanize Usenet!
e...@halcyon.com www.halcyon.com/elf
Public key available
Scott Kelly
jdi...@activa.net (Jeff Diehl) wrote:
>True perhaps, but if a person is so independent, they should be open to
>polyamory anyway (seems to me).
Reminds me of a great line from the TV series M*A*S*H*
Maragret and Hawkeye in Rosie's bar. Maragret has just finished
giving her formula-- x% of her most recent man, y% of Hawkeye, 5% of
her ex-husband, 20% of Frank Burns-- for the prefect relelationship.
Hawkeye to Maragret: Problem is we're both looking for custom made
people in an off-the-rack world.
LK :-)
Scott Kelly
jdi...@activa.net (Jeff Diehl) wrote:
[snip]
>
>The primary reason I'm considering polyamory is that I detest
>codependency, and I see the traditional, monogamous, exclusive
>relationship as the perfect embodiment of codependency on a cultural
>level. While I'm not so naive as to think that poly automatically
>eliminates codependency, I do see it as a tool for healthy intimacy, an
>alternative to the traditional relationship model.
[snip]
Ideally it is. Ideally so are many forms of marriage found thru out
the world. But... emotions can be powerful and your explorations may
uncover personal issues you didn't know you had. Any relationship can
do that, but with poly finding day-to-day suppport is more difficult.
>If poly allows me to escape the trap of codependency by allowing me to
>distribute my intimacy needs, and therefore eliminating the stress and
>pressure involved with demanding all of my needs from one person (and
>providing all of another's needs), then I would like to explore it.
Poly is not a shield. "Co-dependency" as you define it, can exsist
any personal relationship.
>I do
>NOT believe affection exists in a static amount, and I also believe that
>*quality* of time is primary over *quantitiy* of time.
>
(Simply being with someone, a friend or a roommate or a lover, in the
quiet of our minds with occasional conversation has always been one of
my favorite activites.)
"Quality time" versus "quantity time" is essentially a sham.
"Quantity time" can be... all the caretaking time I spend with my
children or simply being with someone, for instance laying on the
beach without constant chatter; it has the potential to become
"quality time."
If you don't *give time* nothing is going to grow.
LK
^Gareth
>The key (it seems to me) is to
>realise each persons individual needs and treat them with that in mibnd
>instead of what YOU need. Part of being in a relationship is being able
>to step outside of yourself long enough to "feel" what your partner/s
>feel.
Well said!
^Gareth
The more you know, the less you understand.
Micah Wyenn
Gary,
Elf is just allowed to do that. Go figure.
Helix