Hello
The Wyrm Ouroboros
Subject: Hello
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Keywords:
A friend recommend this newsgroup to me.
I have recently come upon the idea that I may be polyamorous, and it
makes a lot of sense to me; yet, I am getting quite a bit of disbelief
and misunderstandings trying to explore this idea with my friends, and
as a result I am rapidly becoming confused.
I have come to see that my ideas on what is a commitment are different
than what is presented to me by society.
In the past, I would be involved, and then fall in love or form some
form of relationship with another man (I being female, and
heterosexual). I would break the old relationship reluctantly because I
would get to a point where circumstances pointed to me having to make a
choice between the two, and I would reluctantly do so.
Each time I felt that my relationship demanded monogamy -- that that was
part of the commitment my partners expected -- and I would feel doubt as
to whether I should continue that relationship because even if I kept
commitment with my body the rest of me was straying.... I then would
call the whole relationship into question and eventually leave, usually
forming a relationship with the other person soon after.
I've been engaged twice, and am presently still on the second one. I did
it again -- I fell in love with another man besides my fiance. I did not
want to leave my fiance, and yet a relationship developed, and I had an
affair. It became known and all sorts of trouble resulted. I had no
desire to leave my fiance, nor did I wish to take my lover away from his
fiancee. I only wanted to express my love for him and felt I could not
do it openly.
During the affair I felt very trapped by my engagement. I still do a
bit. I love my fiance deeply and do not wish to leave him, but yet...
I found I could not understand his fiancees anger. After all, he went
back to her after leaving me, and isn't that the definition of
commitment? Or so it was in my eyes -- I don't really care if my fiance
finds some of his needs elsewhere -- even sexual ones -- as long as he
comes back to me. Only then would there be no relationship, no
commitment. She seemed mad because she thought she had him exclusively,
I felt mad because she seemed unwilling to share. She was jealous when
she did not have him exclusively and I felt jealous only when she got
him exclusively. I felt jealous of her ability to show him how she felt
openly, or when she later got his full attention after the affair became
known to the complete exclusion of me even as a friend.
People kept telling me, after my lover said he did not want me, that I
had to chose between my fiance and my lover. And obviously, since my
lover did not want me at the time (he is coming back around after
working out his guilt and dealing with the fact that his fiancee left
him over this), I should chose my fiance and be done with it.
But I can't see why I *have* to make a choice! Why do I always have to
make a choice? Everyone expects it, but its not what I want to do. I get
different things from each relationship, and am unwilling to give up
either unless one of them wants my relationship with them to end. My
fiance asked me in all seriousness what is was I got from my lover that
I wasn't getting from him so he could try to give it to me, and I
couldn't answer. I wasn't looking for anything when I had the affair.
It's like comparing apples and oranges. Neither of them is better: They
are just different and both enjoyable.
All my friends say that obviously something was missing from my
engagement or I wouldn't have 'strayed'. But I can't think of anything,
really. I have a relationship I would be more than willing to build a
marriage on, except now for one thing: My fiance is jealous and feels
inadequate because I love two people. He acts like I *must* love one
more than the other, which seems silly to me. I love both and could not
tell you which I love more.
So I have digested the idea I may be polyamorous. I know I am not happy
in a relationship that demands monogamy, but I'm not sure this alone
makes me polyamorous or if I am simply afraid of the traditional
definition of commitment.
I broached the subject with my fiance, and as we talked explained that I
had thought quite a bit on the subject and do not feel I'm going to be
happy in a traditional monogamous relationship. I want to be free to
not only love who I will but to express that love without having to
contend with feelings of guilt because I feel something else is expected
of me. I put the ball in his court: Can you accept me the way I am and
be happy with me? If not, go, and remember that I love you.
I am awaiting his answer. I told him I would not broach the subject
again, and would let him think and he would have to tell me when he had
come to a decision about whether we can be a couple still.
I feel very alone. Not lonely -- I have lots of friends -- but alone.
And confused. Am I polyamorous? Or am I looking for excuses? What if my
fiance goes and my lover only wants to be friends? What then? What if my
lover cannot accept me now, even as a friend?
I suppose I'm scared and frightened and confused. Is this normal?
Pardon the babble -- I suppose I am looking for advice or comments. What
am I, really? And where do I go from here?
Sincerely,
Bekka (aka One confused newbie)
Rick Miller - [Reluctant?] Monogamist
>
>A friend recommend this newsgroup to me.
>
>I have recently come upon the idea that I may be polyamorous, and it
>makes a lot of sense to me; yet, I am getting quite a bit of disbelief
>and misunderstandings trying to explore this idea with my friends, and
>as a result I am rapidly becoming confused.
>
Bekka (and all you newbie Freshmen...),
I haven't been following alt.polyamory very long myself, but a few things
are immediately obvious:
You don't understand polyamory at all. (Heh! look who's talking, eh? ;-)
Just because you feel romantically attatched to more than one man doesn't
mean you're in a polyamorous relationship... only that you *want* to be.
Your men may have very different ideas, though! If either of them is
going on the assumption that their relationship with you should be a
monogamous one, then you're a liar and a cheat to hold onto both.
Starting over (ah, it's easy to look *back* chu ne?), what you *should*
have done when you started liking your "other man" was to introduce him
to your fiance!! Bring him *into* your relationship with your fiance,
rather than try to build another completely separate relationship.
Then, when your fiance would ask,
"Why do you want *him* along? I thought it would be just us."
You would have the opportunity to tell him,
"He's a nice guy, you'll like him."
...rather than hiding your feelings from your fiance and having to
explain later why you've been deceiving him, after which he may never
trust you again.
RICK MILLER <ri...@ee.uwm.edu> Voice: +1 414 221-3403
P.O. BOX 1759 FAX: +1 414 221-4744
MILWAUKEE, WI Send a postcard and I'll send one back.
53150-1759 USA Sendu bildkarton kaj mi retrosendos oni.
sonny hays-eberts
Wyrm Ouroboros) wrote:
>
> A friend recommend this newsgroup to me.
smart friend! we could all use more like that. and not just that he
recommended this group to you, but that he acted on what he thought you
needed/wanted.
>
> I have recently come upon the idea that I may be polyamorous, and it
> makes a lot of sense to me; yet, I am getting quite a bit of disbelief
> and misunderstandings trying to explore this idea with my friends, and
> as a result I am rapidly becoming confused.
that's normal. just keep telling yourself 'i am not a bad person.' our
society places a phenomonal weight on monogomy and conforming. it's hard to
step outside that. your true friends will accept you without judgement.
return the favor.
>
> I have come to see that my ideas on what is a commitment are different
> than what is presented to me by society.
>
> In the past, I would be involved, and then fall in love or form some
> form of relationship with another man (I being female, and
> heterosexual). I would break the old relationship reluctantly because I
> would get to a point where circumstances pointed to me having to make a
> choice between the two, and I would reluctantly do so.
without knowing the alternatives availible to you, that seems normal.
>
> Each time I felt that my relationship demanded monogamy -- that that was
> part of the commitment my partners expected -- and I would feel doubt as
> to whether I should continue that relationship because even if I kept
> commitment with my body the rest of me was straying.... I then would
> call the whole relationship into question and eventually leave, usually
> forming a relationship with the other person soon after.
again, a fairly normal process. but there are other options, as you will
soon find out....
>
> I've been engaged twice, and am presently still on the second one. I did
> it again -- I fell in love with another man besides my fiance. I did not
> want to leave my fiance, and yet a relationship developed, and I had an
> affair. It became known and all sorts of trouble resulted. I had no
> desire to leave my fiance, nor did I wish to take my lover away from his
> fiancee. I only wanted to express my love for him and felt I could not
> do it openly.
it is difficult to do so openly, but at the very least one needs to be open
with your partner(s). the world is another story.
>
> During the affair I felt very trapped by my engagement. I still do a
> bit. I love my fiance deeply and do not wish to leave him, but yet...
it's a choice. for both of you. and it seems like something you need to
cover soon. if he can't handle polyamory/polyfidelity, and you can't handle
monogomy, then i see deep black storm clouds moving in.
>
> I found I could not understand his fiancees anger. After all, he went
> back to her after leaving me, and isn't that the definition of
> commitment? Or so it was in my eyes -- I don't really care if my fiance
it's more than commitment. trust, openness and acceptance count, too. and
everyone places different premiums on each.
> finds some of his needs elsewhere -- even sexual ones -- as long as he
> comes back to me. Only then would there be no relationship, no
> commitment. She seemed mad because she thought she had him exclusively,
> I felt mad because she seemed unwilling to share. She was jealous when
> she did not have him exclusively and I felt jealous only when she got
> him exclusively. I felt jealous of her ability to show him how she felt
> openly, or when she later got his full attention after the affair became
> known to the complete exclusion of me even as a friend.
>
> People kept telling me, after my lover said he did not want me, that I
> had to chose between my fiance and my lover. And obviously, since my
> lover did not want me at the time (he is coming back around after
> working out his guilt and dealing with the fact that his fiancee left
> him over this), I should chose my fiance and be done with it.
ah, one of the big factors in the poly world is personal growth/awareness.
if you proceed further into this world, you will learn a lot about
yourself. and it may not all be nice. it certainly won't be easy. i
personally would be suspicious of someone who chose another over me, then
came back after they lost that person. i am in favor of polyfidelity -
multiple loves who are all primary to each other. getting there involves
stages where i might be secondary, but that's a temporary place for me.
now, others will be quick to tell you there are other poly flavors, that is
just what *i* want. you need to decide what *you* really want, for yourself
only.
>
> But I can't see why I *have* to make a choice! Why do I always have to
> make a choice? Everyone expects it, but its not what I want to do. I get
> different things from each relationship, and am unwilling to give up
> either unless one of them wants my relationship with them to end. My
> fiance asked me in all seriousness what is was I got from my lover that
> I wasn't getting from him so he could try to give it to me, and I
> couldn't answer. I wasn't looking for anything when I had the affair.
> It's like comparing apples and oranges. Neither of them is better: They
> are just different and both enjoyable.
>
> All my friends say that obviously something was missing from my
> engagement or I wouldn't have 'strayed'. But I can't think of anything,
> really. I have a relationship I would be more than willing to build a
> marriage on, except now for one thing: My fiance is jealous and feels
> inadequate because I love two people. He acts like I *must* love one
> more than the other, which seems silly to me. I love both and could not
> tell you which I love more.
>
> So I have digested the idea I may be polyamorous. I know I am not happy
> in a relationship that demands monogamy, but I'm not sure this alone
> makes me polyamorous or if I am simply afraid of the traditional
> definition of commitment.
like i said, if you continue on the road of polyness, you will find the
answers to these questions and more.
>
> I broached the subject with my fiance, and as we talked explained that I
> had thought quite a bit on the subject and do not feel I'm going to be
> happy in a traditional monogamous relationship. I want to be free to
> not only love who I will but to express that love without having to
> contend with feelings of guilt because I feel something else is expected
> of me. I put the ball in his court: Can you accept me the way I am and
> be happy with me? If not, go, and remember that I love you.
>
just be careful . the most common reason, imho, of poly blowouts is that
one partner goes along simply not to lose the other, then eventually tires
of the
strain, because they don't really want it.
> I am awaiting his answer. I told him I would not broach the subject
> again, and would let him think and he would have to tell me when he had
> come to a decision about whether we can be a couple still.
and what if he desperately wants to remain a couple, but be closed. can you
honestly leave him? you may very well need to make this choice yourself,
not just put the onus on him.
>
> I feel very alone. Not lonely -- I have lots of friends -- but alone.
> And confused. Am I polyamorous? Or am I looking for excuses? What if my
> fiance goes and my lover only wants to be friends? What then? What if my
> lover cannot accept me now, even as a friend?
well, at the risk of sounding trite, life proceeds. it will hurt, you will
in time get over it, and either repeat as needed or move on to something
better. i wish i could say it would all be alright, but i'd just be kidding
you.
>
> I suppose I'm scared and frightened and confused. Is this normal?
yes. somedays it gets better, others are worse. it simply is. our family
mascot is the rollar coaster :), because of all the ups and downs we
experience.
>
> Pardon the babble -- I suppose I am looking for advice or comments. What
> am I, really? And where do I go from here?
only you know for sure. it sounds like you should at least explore the poly
lifestyle. and a good place to start is the pep (polyfidelity education
program) primer. if you want it, email me and i'll dig out the address you
can get it from (it's $14). you're asking some big questions. i'm not
foolish enough to say i have the answers, but i do think you're moving in
the right direction.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bekka (aka One confused newbie)
Gegen Dummheit kaempfen die Goetter selbst vergebens.
-- Schiller
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
Roger Ritter
>A friend recommend this newsgroup to me.
>
>I have recently come upon the idea that I may be polyamorous, and it
>makes a lot of sense to me; yet, I am getting quite a bit of disbelief
>and misunderstandings trying to explore this idea with my friends, and
>as a result I am rapidly becoming confused.
A common reaction from people wedded to the idea of monogamy.
>
>I have come to see that my ideas on what is a commitment are different
>than what is presented to me by society.
A good clue that you may be polyamorous!
>
>In the past, I would be involved, and then fall in love or form some
>form of relationship with another man (I being female, and
>heterosexual). I would break the old relationship reluctantly because I
>would get to a point where circumstances pointed to me having to make a
>choice between the two, and I would reluctantly do so.
>
>Each time I felt that my relationship demanded monogamy -- that that was
>part of the commitment my partners expected -- and I would feel doubt as
>to whether I should continue that relationship because even if I kept
>commitment with my body the rest of me was straying.... I then would
>call the whole relationship into question and eventually leave, usually
>forming a relationship with the other person soon after.
The trick is to build relationships that don't demand monogamy -- it's
not easy in our society, since there's a presupposition of monogamy in
committed relationships. The best bet at first is to make clear the
fact that you're not interested in monogamous relationships - even if
the two of you eventually become very serious. If that doesn't scare
off the person, then you can explain, develop, and explore the ideas
of polyamory as your relationship develops.
>
[stuff deleted]
>I found I could not understand his fiancees anger. After all, he went
>back to her after leaving me, and isn't that the definition of
>commitment? Or so it was in my eyes -- I don't really care if my fiance
>finds some of his needs elsewhere -- even sexual ones -- as long as he
>comes back to me. Only then would there be no relationship, no
>commitment. She seemed mad because she thought she had him exclusively,
>I felt mad because she seemed unwilling to share. She was jealous when
>she did not have him exclusively and I felt jealous only when she got
>him exclusively. I felt jealous of her ability to show him how she felt
>openly, or when she later got his full attention after the affair became
>known to the complete exclusion of me even as a friend.
Your definition of commitment obviously wasn't hers. Hers is a common
monogamous definition, yours is a good start at a polyamorous definition.
They are not usually compatible, though.
>
>People kept telling me, after my lover said he did not want me, that I
>had to chose between my fiance and my lover. And obviously, since my
>lover did not want me at the time (he is coming back around after
>working out his guilt and dealing with the fact that his fiancee left
>him over this), I should chose my fiance and be done with it.
>
>But I can't see why I *have* to make a choice! Why do I always have to
>make a choice? Everyone expects it, but its not what I want to do. I get
>different things from each relationship, and am unwilling to give up
>either unless one of them wants my relationship with them to end. My
>fiance asked me in all seriousness what is was I got from my lover that
>I wasn't getting from him so he could try to give it to me, and I
>couldn't answer. I wasn't looking for anything when I had the affair.
>It's like comparing apples and oranges. Neither of them is better: They
>are just different and both enjoyable.
Yes, and the reason I prefer polyamory to monogamy. Society differs,
though. Monogamy is the norm, and any deviations from that are to be
corrected, punished, or both. This is one of the things that makes
being polyamorous difficult. If you know no poly people, then you're
receiving all of this disapproval with no support, which makes it all
that much harder to handle. Hopefully this newsgroup can help.
>
>All my friends say that obviously something was missing from my
>engagement or I wouldn't have 'strayed'. But I can't think of anything,
>really. I have a relationship I would be more than willing to build a
>marriage on, except now for one thing: My fiance is jealous and feels
>inadequate because I love two people. He acts like I *must* love one
>more than the other, which seems silly to me. I love both and could not
>tell you which I love more.
It's silly to you, but obviously not to him. You need to talk with him
in great depth and detail, explaining your feelings on commitment and
marriage. This may result in your engagement breaking up. It depends
on how fully committed to the idea of monogamy he is, or how willing
you are to forego the polyamory that makes sense for you. You're in
a tough situation here, and you shouldn't rush ahead with things until
you and he have a better idea of what's going on. It's going to be
tough no matter what, so keep the lines of communications open and try
not to let things get so out of hand that you aren't really talking
any more.
>
>So I have digested the idea I may be polyamorous. I know I am not happy
>in a relationship that demands monogamy, but I'm not sure this alone
>makes me polyamorous or if I am simply afraid of the traditional
>definition of commitment.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I wouldn't say that poly folks
are afraid of the traditional definition of commitment, but most of us
don't pay much attention to it, either. Your definition of commitment
given earlier is very poly, so I suspect that you are poly as well. I
don't think you're afraid of commitment (based on this admittedly small
sample).
>
>I broached the subject with my fiance, and as we talked explained that I
>had thought quite a bit on the subject and do not feel I'm going to be
>happy in a traditional monogamous relationship. I want to be free to
>not only love who I will but to express that love without having to
>contend with feelings of guilt because I feel something else is expected
>of me. I put the ball in his court: Can you accept me the way I am and
>be happy with me? If not, go, and remember that I love you.
Unfortunately, this ever-so-gentle ultimatum is a good reflection of
real life. Just don't let the fact that the ball is in his court shut
off the lines of communications before he gives you his answer. Further
discussion may be needed to help him figure out what he wants. Keep
talking!
>
>I am awaiting his answer. I told him I would not broach the subject
>again, and would let him think and he would have to tell me when he had
>come to a decision about whether we can be a couple still.
>
>I feel very alone. Not lonely -- I have lots of friends -- but alone.
>And confused. Am I polyamorous? Or am I looking for excuses? What if my
>fiance goes and my lover only wants to be friends? What then? What if my
>lover cannot accept me now, even as a friend?
>
>I suppose I'm scared and frightened and confused. Is this normal?
Yep :-). But it will get better as you take the time to figure out what
*you* want, and how to get it. Don't go whole hog and be a selfish pig,
but try to make sure your needs are met while you're learning. Don't
lock yourself into a situation you may regret, but don't close things
down prematurely, either. (Hey, I never said the poly life was easy or
simple. :-)
>
>Pardon the babble -- I suppose I am looking for advice or comments. What
>am I, really? And where do I go from here?
>Sincerely,
>
>Bekka (aka One confused newbie)
--
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ri...@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky" the somewhat bent snow angel
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet! - MPFC NH CAP: Profile 49
Ornoth Liscomb
>
>I found I could not understand his fiancees anger. After all, he went
>back to her after leaving me, and isn't that the definition of
>commitment?
But think like a monogamist -- he's been unfaithful, and even though
he's apologetic, what's to stop him from straying _again_ and thinking
he can come back? Heck, she's forgiven him once, why can't she do it
again? And if he's unfaithful already, how can one expect him to be
faithful five, ten, twenty years down the line? It's doomed from the
start!
Aie! Let me outta that headspace! I get claustrophobic in there!
>fiance asked me in all seriousness what is was I got from my lover that
>I wasn't getting from him so he could try to give it to me, and I
>couldn't answer.
I like this. It shows the monogamist's view that he must be able to
fulfil of all your needs, something this forum has wondered at before.
My own feeling is that you couldn't answer him because you get the same
thing from both men, albeit in different flavors: affection and
companionship. It boggles me that someone could live in a mindset where
one could only have one single source of affection and companionship --
it just don't make sense!
>All my friends say that obviously something was missing from my
>engagement or I wouldn't have 'strayed'. But I can't think of anything,
See, they're saying the same stuff your fiancee did. "_Obviously_
something was missing..." Bullshit.
>but I'm not sure this alone makes me polyamorous of if I
>am simply afraid of the traditional definition of commitment.
The fact that you can't think of anything that he didn't provide you is
enough evidence for me to conclude that you're of a poly bent. You don't
appear to operate under monogamous assumptions.
>I feel very alone. Not lonely -- I have lots of friends -- but alone.
>And confused. Am I polyamorous? Or am I looking for excuses?
I don't think you're rationalizing. From what you've written, it sounds
like you're trying to be the proverbial Square Peg. Hopefully this
forum will show you that you're not alone -- there are lots
of people like you who feel the way you do, and they call themselves
polyamorous. Or, rather, _we_ do.
Welcome, sister.
-David/Orny Liscomb "If privacy is outlawed, only
MediQual Systems Inc. outlaws will have privacy."
Westborough, MA USA -Phil Zimmermann, from May/June
'93 issue of Wired
Your_Insult: Iron my duck-billed platypus.
Dave Mason
> In article <25ig0f$h...@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, aalb...@ucunix.san.uc.edu (The
> Wyrm Ouroboros) wrote:
> > I found I could not understand his fiancees anger. After all, he went
> > back to her after leaving me, and isn't that the definition of
> > commitment? Or so it was in my eyes -- I don't really care if my fiance
> > finds some of his needs elsewhere -- even sexual ones -- as long as he
> > comes back to me.
I think this may be the real definition of what poly is all about:
Accepting poliness in others you love. So I'd say -- yes you
certainly sound poly. Whether you should live your live that way or
monogamously is another question that only you can answer.
> > I broached the subject with my fiance, and as we talked explained that I
> > had thought quite a bit on the subject and do not feel I'm going to be
> > happy in a traditional monogamous relationship. I want to be free to
> > not only love who I will but to express that love without having to
> > contend with feelings of guilt because I feel something else is expected
> > of me. I put the ball in his court: Can you accept me the way I am and
> > be happy with me? If not, go, and remember that I love you.
>
> just be careful. the most common reason, imho, of poly blowouts is
> that one partner goes along simply not to lose the other, then
> eventually tires of the strain, because they don't really want it.
I feel it is very important that you get this straight up front. I
didn't make a big issue of a poly lifestyle before we got married, but
we did talk about it, my fiancee expressed diagreement, and eventually
I let it drop because it didn't seem that important (it was the
principle of it that was important to me at the time -- I didn't have
other lovers), and I didn't want to lose the relationship with my
fiance/wife.
15 years later a practical opportunity arose (I fell in love with
another woman) that I eventually had to abandon because my wife
couldn't handle it, and the monogamous commitment from our marriage
meant that *I* was the one who was unilateraly trying to change the
rules -- which wasn't fair. Again faced with probably losing my
relationship with my wife, I made the same decision -- monogamy -- but
it was a close thing for a while.
> > I am awaiting his answer. I told him I would not broach the subject
> > again, and would let him think and he would have to tell me when he had
> > come to a decision about whether we can be a couple still.
>
> and what if he desperately wants to remain a couple, but be closed. can you
> honestly leave him? you may very well need to make this choice yourself,
> not just put the onus on him.
17 years later (2 years after the above situation) , I can't say
whether I'm happy I didn't make an issue of poly living before getting
married. I'm very glad I'm still married to my wife, but there are
certainly nagging doubts about how much I'm missing. I'm effectively
an emotional, non-practising, polyamorist who is glad this newsgroup
exists so I can see my dream working for some people.
> > I suppose I'm scared and frightened and confused. Is this normal?
>
> yes. somedays it gets better, others are worse. it simply is. our family
> mascot is the rollar coaster :), because of all the ups and downs we
> experience.
Scared, frightened, confused sounds like a normal life to me, not even
taking into account the poly lifestyle. :-)
> > Pardon the babble -- I suppose I am looking for advice or comments. What
> > am I, really? And where do I go from here?
>
>[good advice from sonny omited]
Good luck. Hope it all works out well for all concerned.
../Dave
Nicolas Ranald Bryant
on.]
People are stupid, aren't they?
>So I have digested the idea I may be polyamorous. I know I am not happy
>in a relationship that demands monogamy, but I'm not sure this alone
>makes me polyamorous or if I am simply afraid of the traditional
>definition of commitment.
>
>I broached the subject with my fiance, and as we talked explained that I
>had thought quite a bit on the subject and do not feel I'm going to be
>happy in a traditional monogamous relationship. I want to be free to
>not only love who I will but to express that love without having to
>contend with feelings of guilt because I feel something else is expected
>of me. I put the ball in his court: Can you accept me the way I am and
>be happy with me? If not, go, and remember that I love you.
I can only hope your fiance proves as sensible as yourself. I have my mis-
givings, but I'm famous for my pessimism.
>I am awaiting his answer. I told him I would not broach the subject
>again, and would let him think and he would have to tell me when he had
>come to a decision about whether we can be a couple still.
>
>I feel very alone. Not lonely -- I have lots of friends -- but alone.
>And confused. Am I polyamorous? Or am I looking for excuses?
expect you'll find that ,most of the people on this group sympathise with
your side of things. I know I do. It seems to me that you are being not
only honest, but remarkably self-effacing by behaving as you are. The selfish
way to behave would be to try and hang on to your fiance through dishonesty.
The fact that you are prepared to face up to breaking an engagement because
of your feelings seems to me to be admirable.
>What if my
>fiance goes and my lover only wants to be friends?
I refuse to say anything as trite as "there are lots of fish in the sea,:
but, from what you've said, I think you'll be happier in the long-run if
you hang on and wait for partners who understand and sympathise with your
point of view. If your friend cannot accept you for what you are, then you
are better off not having him as a partner. (Says he, smugly. No, I'm not
trying to belittle the agonies you must be suffering, just trying to reassure
you that I think you're doing the right thing.)
>What then? What if my
>lover cannot accept me now, even as a friend?
That's his problem.
>
>I suppose I'm scared and frightened and confused. Is this normal?
Oh yes, believe me, it is. Most people are frightened or confused about some-
thing, and many are frightened and confused about a lot of things all the time,
but anyone would be desperately upset at losing a romantic partner, anyone
would be upset at losing a friend, or the possibilty of losing him, and
anyone would be confused if other people try to make them behave in a way
they know is wrong.
>
>Pardon the babble -- I suppose I am looking for advice or comments. What
>am I, really? And where do I go from here?
You are what you are, what you feel comfortable with. If you want the
reassurance of a label, then yes, you are polyamorous. That's what poly-
amory means, carrying on a sexual/romantic relationship with more than
just the "traditional" two partners involved.
I know how you feel, people have a cruel habit of trying to make people who
disagree with them feel that they are guilty an inadequate for doing so. This
applies in many more fields than romance. I can only wish you luck, and say,
as I am sure most people on this group would, that you are more than welcome
to any support we can offer you.
Just try to feel that you are right. Being monogamous is not wrong, but it
certainly should not be put forward as uniquely right. It's a question of
choice, a question of people being comfortable with themselves and each other,
of being nice to others rather than condemning them.
Good luck,
>Sincerely,
>
>Bekka (aka One confused newbie)
Nick Bryant, pessimist and cynic.
sonny hays-eberts
(Nicolas Ranald Bryant) wrote:
>
> [Bulk pf text deleted because it's all too sensible and obvious to comment
> on.]
>
> People are stupid, aren't they?
actually no, they aren't. they are quite creative and innovative. of
course, that's the difference between an optimist(me) and a pessimist(you),
isn't it?
> >What if my
> >fiance goes and my lover only wants to be friends?
>
> I refuse to say anything as trite as "there are lots of fish in the sea,:
> but, from what you've said, I think you'll be happier in the long-run if
> you hang on and wait for partners who understand and sympathise with your
> point of view. If your friend cannot accept you for what you are, then you
> are better off not having him as a partner. (Says he, smugly. No, I'm not
> trying to belittle the agonies you must be suffering, just trying to reassure
> you that I think you're doing the right thing.)
>
it's nice to be so sure, but *i* think she's wondering if it is the right
thing. and i'm not going to give that answer, and i'll urge her to not
accept yours. the real answer has to come from her.
> >What then? What if my
> >lover cannot accept me now, even as a friend?
>
> That's his problem.
that's a very simple view. since it involves loss on her part, it is also
her problem.
>
> You are what you are, what you feel comfortable with. If you want the
> reassurance of a label, then yes, you are polyamorous. That's what poly-
> amory means, carrying on a sexual/romantic relationship with more than
> just the "traditional" two partners involved.
>
> I know how you feel, people have a cruel habit of trying to make people who
> disagree with them feel that they are guilty an inadequate for doing so. This
> applies in many more fields than romance. I can only wish you luck, and say,
> as I am sure most people on this group would, that you are more than welcome
> to any support we can offer you.
wow, just this last weekend, at pepcon during the zegg seminar, i was
exposed to people who patently put forth the precept that monogomy is wrong
and can't possibly work - my clever response was 'bullshit'. like jenny
said, what works for you is what works, and that's not dysfunctional. not
only is the poly mono debate sometimes foolishly concerned with which is
wrong, it also sometimes labels one or the other as better. for
individuals, that's ok. poly is right *for* me. as a general philosophy,
neither is better or worse than the other.
>
> Just try to feel that you are right. Being monogamous is not wrong, but it
> certainly should not be put forward as uniquely right. It's a question of
> choice, a question of people being comfortable with themselves and each other,
> of being nice to others rather than condemning them.
nicely said. i only wish it was more true, all around.
Ofer Inbar
problem with your news posting software. An extra set of headers is
getting included in the message body, and your second posting came out
doubled. If you have a chance, you may want to look into it.]
>A friend recommend this newsgroup to me.
>I have recently come upon the idea that I may be polyamorous, and it
>makes a lot of sense to me; yet, I am getting quite a bit of disbelief
>and misunderstandings trying to explore this idea with my friends, and
>as a result I am rapidly becoming confused.
>
>I have come to see that my ideas on what is a commitment are different
>than what is presented to me by society.
[...]
>But I can't see why I *have* to make a choice! Why do I always have to
>make a choice? Everyone expects it, but its not what I want to do. I get
>different things from each relationship, and am unwilling to give up
>either unless one of them wants my relationship with them to end. My
>fiance asked me in all seriousness what is was I got from my lover that
>I wasn't getting from him so he could try to give it to me, and I
>couldn't answer. I wasn't looking for anything when I had the affair.
>It's like comparing apples and oranges. Neither of them is better: They
>are just different and both enjoyable.
This reminds me of someone I know very well - me. I was going
through the same sorts of thoughts when I was in high school. I
didn't have any serious relationships back then (mostly because I
didn't have enough confidence), so the ideas never got crystallized,
but basically I was thinking all the things you just described here.
>I feel very alone. Not lonely -- I have lots of friends -- but alone.
>And confused. Am I polyamorous? Or am I looking for excuses? What if my
>fiance goes and my lover only wants to be friends? What then? What if my
>lover cannot accept me now, even as a friend?
When I saw the newgroup message for alt.polyamory, I knew right away
what it was about. I had never met anyone else who shared my ideas,
and I hadn't even been sure of what my ideas were, but I knew that
this was the word to describe me, and the newsgroup to talk to other
people of like mind.
Don't bother asking "am I polyamorous". The word is a rather new
one, anyway; the newsgroup was created by the people who coined the
word to begin with. Its meaning is both broad and clear, and you
probably already know it fits you. You may have been thinking that
there were other people here before you who have been busy deciding
just what "polyamory" is, but in fact, you get to define it along with
us. Your experiences will add to the soup.
>I suppose I'm scared and frightened and confused. Is this normal?
I don't remember ever being scared or frightened or confused, but
that's probably because I wasn't in a relationship when I started
thinking about this. I *was* when I finally figured it all out, only
a few months too late, but that's after this newsgroup was here.
The support of knowing other people are living it makes it feel like
more than just some abstract theory. The flip side of the coin,
though, is that once you know other people are doing "it", you may
feel less free to choose your own path. It's easier, and tempting, to
see what other people are doing and pick from those choices. So look
out for that.
Keep us posted, and enjoy life and love.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- c...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
-- WBRS (BRiS) -- WB...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu WB...@brandeis.bitnet
Love: a blurring of the distinction between selfish and selfless.
Ofer Inbar
>aalb...@ucunix.san.uc.edu (The Wyrm Ouroboros) writes:
>>I have recently come upon the idea that I may be polyamorous, and it
>>makes a lot of sense to me; yet, I am getting quite a bit of disbelief
>>and misunderstandings trying to explore this idea with my friends, and
>>as a result I am rapidly becoming confused.
>[...]
>I haven't been following alt.polyamory very long myself, but a few things
>are immediately obvious:
>
>Just because you feel romantically attatched to more than one man doesn't
>mean you're in a polyamorous relationship... only that you *want* to be.
"Just because you're attracted to people of your own gender doesn't
mean you're in a homosexual relationship, only that you *want* to be."
Just how is that relevant?
>Your men may have very different ideas, though! If either of them is
>going on the assumption that their relationship with you should be a
>monogamous one, then you're a liar and a cheat to hold onto both.
>
>Starting over (ah, it's easy to look *back* chu ne?), what you *should*
>have done when you started liking your "other man" was to introduce him
>to your fiance!! Bring him *into* your relationship with your fiance,
>rather than try to build another completely separate relationship.
Aside from the fact that you're making some unwarranted assumtions
here, give her a break. I was already several months into a
relationship when I realized exactly what poly meant to me. How I
wish I could have "done it right" to begin with, but it's too late.
We love each other, and we have to sort it out. She's not stricltly
mono, she's just not sure. I'm going to try a poly relationship when
the chance comes, but hopefully I can do it in a way that doesn't make
me lose her. But either way, I know I won't be happy if I don't, and
that doesn't mean I'm a liar and a cheat.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- c...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
"When it comes to raising children, government doesn't know best,
parents know best." -- George Bush, 1992 Republican Convention
"Governments don't raise children, parents do."
-- Bill Clinton, 1992 Democratic Convention
Joe Avins
: ri...@ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller - [Reluctant?] Monogamist) writes:
: >Just because you feel romantically attatched to more than one man doesn't
: >mean you're in a polyamorous relationship... only that you *want* to be.
: "Just because you're attracted to people of your own gender doesn't
: mean you're in a homosexual relationship, only that you *want* to be."
: Just how is that relevant?
I don't think gay and polyamorous are redilly comparable in this way.
I'm sure that (basically) all healthy adults are capable of loving
more than one other person, but most suppress those feelings, or lie
about them. The same *might* be true about same sex attraction, but
this is not at all clear. (Most) Gays and bis don't choose to be,
they discover it. Polies choose it. Gay or bi is what you are; poly
is what you do.
The original poster asked "Am I polyamorous?" The only possible
answer is "Well, are you? What do you want?"
I was monogomous with my (yet to be) wife when our relationship
started. I saw no reason to be; I knew that we could both be
involved with others and not hurt our commitment to each other.
But she wanted monogomy, and I wanted her, so I was monogomous.
There was no issue of "But I'm polyamorous; I can't be involved
with only one woman." It was a simple choice.
A couple of years later, she became romantically and sexually
interested in a mutual friend of ours. She had no intention
of leaving me, but had some trepidations about how I would feel.
After I told her that I *really* didn't mind at all, and that
tis was exactly what I meant when I said monogomy was not important
to me, she came to terms with the idea of polyamory and now we have
what I call a slightly ajar marriage.
The point of this personal history is that poly or mono is a choice,
not a characteristic that one either has or does not.
Joe Avins
jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Jim Baranski
I don't think gay and polyamorous are redilly comparable in this way.
I'm sure that (basically) all healthy adults are capable of loving
more than one other person, but most suppress those feelings, or lie
about them. The same *might* be true about same sex attraction, but
this is not at all clear. (Most) Gays and bis don't choose to be,
they discover it. Polies choose it. Gay or bi is what you are; poly
is what you do.
The original poster asked "Am I polyamorous?" The only possible
answer is "Well, are you? What do you want?"
I was monogomous with my (yet to be) wife when our relationship
started. I saw no reason to be; I knew that we could both be
involved with others and not hurt our commitment to each other.
But she wanted monogomy, and I wanted her, so I was monogomous.
There was no issue of "But I'm polyamorous; I can't be involved
with only one woman." It was a simple choice.
You have always been polyamorous. There have merely been times when you've
choosen to have only one love.
The equivilent would be for a homosexual (or *-sexual for that matter)
person not taking part in any homosexual acts. The only difference is that
it's hard to imagine abstaining from sex entirely, while many polyamorous
(and supposed monogamous) people do attempt to be monogamous.
Jim.
sonny hays-eberts
> I don't think gay and polyamorous are redilly comparable in this way.
> I'm sure that (basically) all healthy adults are capable of loving
> more than one other person, but most suppress those feelings, or lie
> about them. The same *might* be true about same sex attraction, but
> this is not at all clear. (Most) Gays and bis don't choose to be,
> they discover it. Polies choose it. Gay or bi is what you are; poly
> is what you do.
i'm unsure if what you are saying is that people who are single or involved
with only one other person cannot be poly. after all, they are not doing.
if it is what you mean, then i strongly disagree.
>
> The original poster asked "Am I polyamorous?" The only possible
> answer is "Well, are you? What do you want?"
correct. the right answer can only come from the person asking the
question.
>
> I was monogomous with my (yet to be) wife when our relationship
> started. I saw no reason to be; I knew that we could both be
> involved with others and not hurt our commitment to each other.
> But she wanted monogomy, and I wanted her, so I was monogomous.
> There was no issue of "But I'm polyamorous; I can't be involved
> with only one woman." It was a simple choice.
>
> A couple of years later, she became romantically and sexually
> interested in a mutual friend of ours. She had no intention
> of leaving me, but had some trepidations about how I would feel.
> After I told her that I *really* didn't mind at all, and that
> tis was exactly what I meant when I said monogomy was not important
> to me, she came to terms with the idea of polyamory and now we have
> what I call a slightly ajar marriage.
>
> The point of this personal history is that poly or mono is a choice,
> not a characteristic that one either has or does not.
viewed in those terms, it could also be a talent or ability. some are
capable, some are not. i don't think of it that way. and i don't see how
your example is all that different from the following -
paraphrased;
i was straight and had a girlfriend. i knew we could see others of the same
sex, but she didn't want to, so i was het. it was a simple choice. we saw
other people, but only of the opposite sex.
a couple of years later, she became romantically and sexually involved in a
mutual friend of ours. she had no intention of leaving me for her.
tis exactly what i meant when i said opposite sex only was not important to
me....
i've *seen* homo/bi/hetero done as choice before, including a friend who
has completely cycled from bi to homo to hetero. these were all his choice.
i don't know if poly is a choice or a characteristic or a talent. it could
be all three and more.
For finally, we are as we love. It is love that measures our stature.
There is no smaller package in the world than that of a person all
wrapped up in himself.
-- William Sloane Coffin
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
Don Wilkinson
{lots of good stuff deleted for brevity's sake}
: just be careful . the most common reason, imho, of poly blowouts is that
: one partner goes along simply not to lose the other, then eventually tires
: of the
: strain, because they don't really want it.
This is what I might call "co-dependant Poly". Having talked to a few people
who have been in this situation, I have noticed a couple of things:
(this is by no means an expert opinion, folks - just me :) )
1) Women tend to get into this more. Their general bend towards martyrdom
and self-sacrifice may lead them to "let" their hubby have others even
when they are not comfortable with the idea. They do it because if they
don't, they knoew they'll lose him.
2) It always backfires. She will lose her ability to suppress her anger,
hurt, feelings of inadequacy, etc. It may come out indirectly as well -
blowups over things that nothing to do with "the other woman".
i guess, simply put, you hope that your partner tells you the truth is
they agree to embrace a non-monogamous lifestyle. Furthermore, that they
are committed to dealing with the challenges that WILL arise. :)
- Don
--
========================================================================
Lord...@netcom.com | Sunnyvale, CA - SF Bay Area | *they call me Bear*
~Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds~
- Albert Einstein
Stef Jones
>sonny hays-eberts (ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>: just be careful . the most common reason, imho, of poly blowouts is that
>: one partner goes along simply not to lose the other, then eventually tires
>: of the
>: strain, because they don't really want it.
>This is what I might call "co-dependant Poly". [...]
>1) Women tend to get into this more. Their general bend towards martyrdom
>and self-sacrifice may lead them to "let" their hubby have others even
>when they are not comfortable with the idea. They do it because if they
>don't, they knoew they'll lose him.
>2) It always backfires. She will lose her ability to suppress her anger,
>hurt, feelings of inadequacy, etc. It may come out indirectly as well -
>blowups over things that nothing to do with "the other woman".
Oh please. Which sex gets more into the kind of poly blowout that happens
when one partner chooses to be monogamous for the sake of the
relationship, even though they are uncomfortable with the idea?
Many relationships contain a hefty store of anger over a lot of things. It
is ridiculous to assume that if one partner is less comfortable with the
open or shutness of the relationship, any unrelated blowup therefore
secretly involves that issue.
--
Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Ofer Inbar
>Ofer Inbar (c...@cs.brandeis.edu) wrote:
>: ri...@ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller - [Reluctant?] Monogamist) writes:
>: >Just because you feel romantically attatched to more than one man doesn't
>: >mean you're in a polyamorous relationship... only that you *want* to be.
>:
>: "Just because you're attracted to people of your own gender doesn't
>: mean you're in a homosexual relationship, only that you *want* to be."
>: Just how is that relevant?
>
>I don't think gay and polyamorous are redilly comparable in this way.
>I'm sure that (basically) all healthy adults are capable of loving
>more than one other person, but most suppress those feelings, or lie
>about them. The same *might* be true about same sex attraction, but
>this is not at all clear. (Most) Gays and bis don't choose to be,
>they discover it. Polies choose it. Gay or bi is what you are; poly
>is what you do.
>The point of this personal history is that poly or mono is a choice,
>not a characteristic that one either has or does not.
Whether polyness comes from choice or biology is not only unknown,
but also irrelevant. By your definition of poly, someone ceases to be
poly as soon as their triad (or greater) breaks up, and they become
monogamous again. What about when that breaks up, and they're not
with anybody for a while? Have they now also ceased to be monogamous?
Definitions for words are only as good as they are useful. The
above definition is not useful. Poly, like homo- or heterosexuality,
is a state of mind. You seem to think it's a state of mind that
everyone is capable of, if only they'd stop lying to themselves and
suppressing their feelings. I hope that's true, although I don't
know. But the point is, if someone can't accept being in love with
multiple people at once, they're not poly. If they can, they are.
Pretty simple, eh? :-)
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- c...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
Mary Malmros
In article <stefCD4...@netcom.com> st...@netcom.com (Stef Jones) writes:
lord...@netcom.com (Don Wilkinson) writes:
[snip]
>This is what I might call "co-dependant Poly". [...]
>1) Women tend to get into this more. Their general bend towards martyrdom
>and self-sacrifice may lead them to "let" their hubby have others even
>when they are not comfortable with the idea. They do it because if they
>don't, they knoew they'll lose him.
>2) It always backfires. She will lose her ability to suppress her anger,
>hurt, feelings of inadequacy, etc. It may come out indirectly as well -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>blowups over things that nothing to do with "the other woman".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[emphasis mine]
Oh please. Which sex gets more into the kind of poly blowout that happens
when one partner chooses to be monogamous for the sake of the
relationship, even though they are uncomfortable with the idea?
Huh?
Many relationships contain a hefty store of anger over a lot of things. It
is ridiculous to assume that if one partner is less comfortable with the
open or shutness of the relationship, any unrelated blowup therefore
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[again, emphasis mine]
secretly involves that issue.
Need I say more? Don wrote that feelings of uncomfortableness with poly
*MAY* manifest themselves in blowups that ostensibly have nothing to
do with the other relationship(s). He didn't say that any and all blowups
are necessarily caused by this.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Malmros | Cayman Systems Inc, 26 Landsdowne St, Cambridge, MA 02139
ma...@cayman.com | Phone 617-494-1999 Fax 617-494-5167 AppleLink CAYMAN.TECH
Jon Harley
: Definitions for words are only as good as they are useful. The
: above definition is not useful. Poly, like homo- or heterosexuality,
: is a state of mind. You seem to think it's a state of mind that
: everyone is capable of, if only they'd stop lying to themselves and
: suppressing their feelings. I hope that's true, although I don't
: know. But the point is, if someone can't accept being in love with
: multiple people at once, they're not poly. If they can, they are.
: Pretty simple, eh? :-)
What if they don't know whether they can accept it or not? Is there really
an obvious analogy with sexuality here? For instance, most people seem to
be attracted to MOTOS/MOTSS/both for some time before they put it into
practice. But do poly people start off by thinking "I want to be in a
relationship with at least 2 other people"... or is it purely learnt by
experience? (I suppose by finding a relationship with 1 person unfulfilling)?
/jon (possibly a clueless question, I've only had access to this group 1 week)
________________________ _____________________________________________ ____
/ -- Jonathan Harley -- / Unix development officer & Usenet admin, __\_ /
/ J.W.H...@bham.ac.uk / Academic Computing Service, University of \ X/
/_______________________/ __Birmingham, UK.________Phone: 021 414 6575____\/
Don Wilkinson
: lord...@netcom.com (Don Wilkinson) writes:
I agree.... I did not say that, Did I??
You are attempting to apply reverse logic, and I think it is not working.
<smile>
I SAID, that the suppressed feelings (pertaining to being unhappy with a
<unilateral> non-monogamous relationship) would like surface elsewhere,
outside the direct context. People are rarely so predictable and logical
such that you can clearly define the origins of a particular set of
feelings, and be sure that those feelings come ONLY from the present
circumstances.
Example: If we were in such a relationship. I wanted to be mono, you
want to be non-mono. You insist, I concede. You go and play, I stay
home and stew. Days/weeks/months later, you say "Hello", and I go for
your throat... See? happens all the time.
- Don
: --
: Stef
: rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
: st...@netcom.com
: Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
bearpaw
>Ofer Inbar (c...@cs.brandeis.edu) wrote:
>...
>: know. But the point is, if someone can't accept being in love with
>: multiple people at once, they're not poly. If they can, they are.
>: Pretty simple, eh? :-)
>What if they don't know whether they can accept it or not? Is there really
>an obvious analogy with sexuality here?
Sure. Many people have aspects of their sexuality that they take some
time deciding whether they accept it or not, MOTSS attraction being an
obvious example. IMHO, some people probably can (and do) decide *not*
to accept some facets of who they are and ignore &/or supress(sp?) them.
Likewise, it seems reasonable that there may be people who want (in some
sense) to be poly (in some sense) but either don't realize that such
things are possible or don't want to deal with the (perceived or real)
additional effort/complications. Whether a tendancy toward polyamory is
as innate to a person as sexual orientation is, of course, a much stickier
question.
> For instance, most people seem to
>be attracted to MOTOS/MOTSS/both for some time before they put it into
>practice.
Most? Perhaps. But certainly not all.
>But do poly people start off by thinking "I want to be in a
>relationship with at least 2 other people"... or is it purely learnt by
>experience? (I suppose by finding a relationship with 1 person unfulfilling)?
Well, personally, I read about poly situations and that started me
thinking. *Then* I got in poly situations and realized (despite the
occasional rough spots) that I enjoyed such situations. Your Mileage
May Vary (and probably will).
BTW, I was in a monogamous relationship and I did *not* find it
"unfulfilling" - it ended for reasons unrelated to the number of
people involved. Given the choice though (as if Love works that way!)
I'd rather be in a poly relationship.
for what its worth,
bearpaw
==bea...@world.std.com=============Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas==
| "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
| I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
| I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
| and whatever benefits humanity as a whole." - Malcolm X
======================================================================
Lynn
>Ofer Inbar (c...@cs.brandeis.edu) wrote:
>: Definitions for words are only as good as they are useful. The
>: above definition is not useful. Poly, like homo- or heterosexuality,
>: is a state of mind. You seem to think it's a state of mind that
>: everyone is capable of, if only they'd stop lying to themselves and
>: suppressing their feelings. I hope that's true, although I don't
>: know. But the point is, if someone can't accept being in love with
>: multiple people at once, they're not poly. If they can, they are.
>: Pretty simple, eh? :-)
>
>What if they don't know whether they can accept it or not? Is there really
>an obvious analogy with sexuality here? For instance, most people seem to
>be attracted to MOTOS/MOTSS/both for some time before they put it into
>practice. But do poly people start off by thinking "I want to be in a
>relationship with at least 2 other people"... or is it purely learnt by
>experience? (I suppose by finding a relationship with 1 person unfulfilling)?
>
And it is further complicated by the different definitions for "in
love." So to answer Ofer's question -- No. It isn't all that simple.
:-)
Lynn
--
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have
imagined that virginity could be a virtue. --Voltaire
Chris Andersen
<snip>
: I'm sure that (basically) all healthy adults are capable of loving
: more than one other person, but most suppress those feelings, or lie
: about them. The same *might* be true about same sex attraction, but
: this is not at all clear. (Most) Gays and bis don't choose to be,
: they discover it. Polies choose it. Gay or bi is what you are; poly
: is what you do.
Sorry Joe but I must respectfully disagree. For as long as I've been aware
of my sexual feelings I've also been aware of my feelings tworads relationships
involving more then one person. When I met my wife-to-be I told her right
out that I didn't believe in monogamy, even though I had as yet had no
practical experience with it. As-of-date we've had approximately 2 1/2
polyamorous encounters (but no long-term relationships). Yet I considered
myself to be polyamorous even before there was such a word.
For some, polyamory is *NOT* a choice. It is what I am.
<snip>
--
Chris Andersen
chr...@agora.rain.com
fearless freep
Andersen) writes:
>[...] As-of-date we've had approximately 2 1/2
>polyamorous encounters (but no long-term relationships). Yet I considered
>myself to be polyamorous even before there was such a word.
I've got to ask.
How do you have *half* a polyamorous encounter?
Cheers,
fearless freep
Stef Jones
>if someone can't accept being in love with
>multiple people at once, they're not poly. If they can, they are.
>Pretty simple, eh? :-)
What if you can accept it in certain circumstances but not others? For
example, many people are comfortably poly when single but prefer monogamy
when in a primary relationship. Are they monogamous or polyamorous?
--
Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
In the force if Yoda's so strong, construct a sentence
with words in the proper order then why can't he? /fortune
Teresa
> c...@cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>
> >if someone can't accept being in love with
> >multiple people at once, they're not poly. If they can, they are.
> >Pretty simple, eh? :-)
>
> What if you can accept it in certain circumstances but not others? For
> example, many people are comfortably poly when single but prefer monogamy
> when in a primary relationship. Are they monogamous or polyamorous?
>
I personally don't think polyamory and monogamy are mutually exclusive.
(I can just hear all of the people now telling me what an idiot I am...
so let me explain before you flame.)
As I have previously stated, I am monogamous. I have a relationship with
one man. He is my only partner. He on the other hand has both me and
another woman as partners. So he is polyamorous.
So what kind of relationship do we have?
Teresa
[*> Management may or may not agree with the above message.
[*> WndrSvr in Southern California; Call +1-310-370-3069
Joe Avins
: jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Joe Avins) writes:
: >Ofer Inbar (c...@cs.brandeis.edu) wrote:
: >: ri...@ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller - [Reluctant?] Monogamist) writes:
: >: >Just because you feel romantically attatched to more than one man doesn't
: >: >mean you're in a polyamorous relationship... only that you *want* to be.
: >:
: >: "Just because you're attracted to people of your own gender doesn't
: >: mean you're in a homosexual relationship, only that you *want* to be."
: >: Just how is that relevant?
: >
: >I don't think gay and polyamorous are redilly comparable in this way.
: >I'm sure that (basically) all healthy adults are capable of loving
: >more than one other person, but most suppress those feelings, or lie
: >about them. The same *might* be true about same sex attraction, but
: >this is not at all clear. (Most) Gays and bis don't choose to be,
: >they discover it. Polies choose it. Gay or bi is what you are; poly
: >is what you do.
: [personal history deleted...]
: >The point of this personal history is that poly or mono is a choice,
: >not a characteristic that one either has or does not.
: Whether polyness comes from choice or biology is not only unknown,
: but also irrelevant. By your definition of poly, someone ceases to be
: poly as soon as their triad (or greater) breaks up, and they become
: monogamous again.
Not what I said at all. A person who is involved with only one
partner but is open to more (looking or not,) such as myself, is
still poly.
: What about when that breaks up, and they're not
: with anybody for a while? Have they now also ceased to be monogamous?
Of course not.
: Definitions for words are only as good as they are useful. The
: above definition is not useful.
Well, not if you misunderstand it. I'm sory I was unclear.
: Poly, like homo- or heterosexuality,
: is a state of mind.
Poly is a state of mind that one may choose. When my wife needed
me to be monogomous, I chose not to be open to other romantic and/or
sexual relationships. Later, we both chose to be open. This is
not the experience of most people wrt sexual preference. Can any
other-than-heteros comment here?
: You seem to think it's a state of mind that
: everyone is capable of, if only they'd stop lying to themselves and
: suppressing their feelings.
This sounds a bit derrogitory, but you've got the gist.
: I hope that's true, although I don't
: know. But the point is, if someone can't accept being in love with
: multiple people at once, they're not poly.
Unless and untill they chose to change. I'm not saying that that
choice is trivial or easy. It was not easy for my wife. But
she chose it. Now, she can.
: If they can, they are.
: Pretty simple, eh? :-)
Yep.
Joe Avins
jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Joe Avins
: This is
: other-than-heteros comment here?
Something else hit me an hour later, so I'm following up to
myself. Wrt sexual preference, my own hetero-ness is not a
choice as my polyism is. I'd still like to here from other-
than-heteros, but we all have a preference of some kind, so they
are not the only ones who can comment.
: : You seem to think it's a state of mind that
: : everyone is capable of, if only they'd stop lying to themselves and
: : suppressing their feelings.
: Joe Avins
: jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
What he said.
Jennifer Lynn Dailey
>The point of this personal history is that poly or mono is a choice,
>not a characteristic that one either has or does not.
I should state first that I agree with you on this one. I was very
happily monogamous with Chris for some time before I met Iain. I didn't
feel like something was missing from my life. I wasn't even
particularly attracted to anyone else. It didn't feel like things
weren't complete until I did come to fall in love with Iain, and even
then I was very aware that what was missing was *Iain*, and not "another
person". I, too, feel that while homosexuality is a sexual orientation,
polyamory is a choice one makes based on one's feelings and one's
present situation. To me, polyamory describes one's relationship
*situation*, not one's relationship *orientation*. Someone who is in a
sexual-loving relationship that permits other sexual-loving
relationships is polyamorous.
However, I also realize this isn't the prevailing opinion on this
newsgroup. Most people disagree with you. You should realize that this
is only your opinion, and therefore should not be stated like it's a fact.
--
Jennie Dailey | "Ich bin auch ein Vertriebener; ich werde
gr...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu | ueberall begraben sein."
Ann Arbor, Michigan | -- Heinz Rudolf Kunze
David Marangio
hoping to meet people rather than just see things. I have been lurking here
for a bit, will attend a meeting I learned about here, tomorrow night, in
Jersey, and would like to meet others in my travels.
A brief description - male 28, born and raised in brooklyn, interests include
cycing, hiking, walking, camping, architecture and photography. I also have an
interest in seeing any type of manufacturing/work environment. If you share
any of these intersts and would like to spend some time while I am in your
area please let me know.
Also, if anyone would like to join this trip, you would be welcome.
Rough sketch of itinerary:
Leave Philly 24th Sept.
- Philly to W.Lafeyette (Indiana) 25th
- W.Lafayette to Minneapolis 26th
- Minneapolis to Montana (Yellowstone N.P.) 27/28th
- Montana to Seattle
- Spend 2-3 days in Seattle. 28-1st
- Seattle to San Francisco. Spend 3-4 days in Frisco. 2-5
- Frisco to LA
- LA - San Diego - LA. 2-3 days 6-8
- LA to Vegas. 9th
- Vegas to Phoenix 10/11th
- Phoenix to Grand Canyon. 12-13th
- Grand Canyon - Utah - Colorado 14-16th
- Colorado to St. Louis 17th
- St. Louis to Philly.
Thanks,
Dave
ja...@dorsai.dorsai.org
ke...@netaxs.com
Teresa (ter...@wndrsvr.la.ca.us) wrote:
[deletia]
: I personally don't think polyamory and monogamy are mutually exclusive.
: (I can just hear all of the people now telling me what an idiot I am...
: so let me explain before you flame.)
: As I have previously stated, I am monogamous. I have a relationship with
: one man. He is my only partner. He on the other hand has both me and
: another woman as partners. So he is polyamorous.
: So what kind of relationship do we have?
Personally, I'd say you're monogamous but open to polyamory in others, and
he's polyamorous. Your relationship with him is monogamous in nature,
while his relationship with you is polyamorous.
BTW, if I may ask, what are your reasons/explanations for opting for a
monogamous relationship with someone who's poly? Yes, I know, love is
blind and all that, but are you just personally opposed to polyamory?
Religious beliefs in the way?
--
Ken
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Ken Warren email: ke...@netaxs.com
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not
committing them?
elun...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Count me as strongly* agreeing with Chris here. Poly isn't particularly a
choice for me. I seem to be actually incapable of having long term (counted in
years instead of months) monogamous relationships. I've tried it, twice. And
messed it up unbelievably badly both times. If I fell madly in love with
someone who wanted me to be monogamous with them, I'd probably have to insist
that we move to Antartica and that neither of us have any net-access, because
if someone exists* who I could fall in love with, I certainly tend to. (Even
while chanting "I'm not going to love you; we're just going to be friends"
under my breath. It usually works out with me spending a few hours smacking my
head against the wall when I realize that I've gone and fallen for someone
else, when I said* I wouldn't.)
> --
> Chris Andersen
> chr...@agora.rain.com
Betsy.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
elun...@macalstr.edu betsy lundsten
now if i only lived in theory instead of minnesota...
Lars Peter Fischer
>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Avins (jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu)
Joe> Gay or bi is what you are; poly is what you do.
No. Poly is something I am, just like bi is something I am.
I am bi because I have the capacity to love and have sex with both men
and women. Even if I for a long period of time have lovers of only one
sex (or no partners), I am still bi. I am poly because I have the
capacity to love more than one person at a time and accept that my
lovers do the same. Even if I for a long period of time have only one
lover (or no lovers), I am still poly.
Joe> The original poster asked "Am I polyamorous?" The only possible
Joe> answer is "Well, are you? What do you want?"
Not to me. I do not believe that I could be mono.
Joe> I was monogomous with my (yet to be) wife when our relationship
Joe> started. I saw no reason to be; I knew that we could both be
Joe> involved with others and not hurt our commitment to each other.
Joe> But she wanted monogomy, and I wanted her, so I was monogomous.
No. You where poly all along ("I knew that....") but you decided to
have only one lover because your wife wished for you to. One could say
that you where in a mono *relationship* but this does not mean that
you as an *individual* became mono.
Joe> There was no issue of "But I'm polyamorous; I can't be involved
Joe> with only one woman." It was a simple choice.
Yes, restricting yourself to only one lover was a choice. This shows
that a poly person can choose the number of lovers to have. But can a
mono person make that choice? I think not. A truly mono person has no
choice but to have only one lover.
This really isn't different from the fact that I, as a bisexual, can
choose to have only male lovers (or only a single male lover). But can
a heterosexual or a homosexual make such a choice? No.
So, in both situations we see that the is a lack of symmetry.
Joe> After I told her that I *really* didn't mind at all, and that
Joe> tis was exactly what I meant when I said monogomy was not important
Joe> to me, she came to terms with the idea of polyamory and now we have
Joe> what I call a slightly ajar marriage.
So, your wife came to understand that she, too, is a poly person --
something that she had not realized earlier, probably because of
social norms or whatever (all the usual stuff here). Again, not
completely unlike a bi person coming to terms with his or her bi
identity.
Joe> The point of this personal history is that poly or mono is a
Joe> choice, not a characteristic that one either has or does not.
Well, to me it's a history of
a) not doing <whatever> even though you are capable of doing it,
because someone who is important to you would get hurt.
b) discovering (sexual) identity
/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fis...@iesd.auc.dk | Nogen gange, så slås vi for noget
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | Andre gange, så tvivler vi på'et
Martin Schafer
As usual, my reaction is yes and no. There are several
different spectrums involved. Does the idea of being involved
with more than partner seem intellectually impossible? unappealing?
possible? appealing? Do you choose where you fall on this spectrum?
probably not. Does being in love with one person and having a "good"
relationship with them preclude, impede, have no affect on, enhance,
your ability to fall in love with someone else? And subset of this
area: Can you recognize people and situations that you are like to
fall in love with/in before you have gotten yourself involved in it,
with them? and if you can: Do you avoid/accept if they come along/
or seek out those people/situations? Finally we come to an area
that seems to me to be a choice. Of course the real proof of the
pudding is if you find yourself, while still loving your current
partner, in love with another person, do you stay with your partner
and reject the new love? reject your partner and run off with the
new love? or try to arrange a polyamorous relationship with both?
While this last is clearly a choice, the choice will be determined
by your internal emotional cost/benefit calculations, your experience
and your imagination, which are tied to things that are not choices.
And finally when you arrange a polyamorous relationship with both
of them, does it work? And that is also partly determined by the
choices of the three parties, and partly by the temperment of the
three parties.
So is polyamory a choice or innate? I don't think it's a useful
distinction. Is being a Christian or an atheist or a Buddhist,
a choice or innate? I would prefer to focus on, if one wants to
try polyamory, what are the chances of it being successful, and
what choices can one make to improve the odds?
Bernadette Bosky
Semantics, but I've been vaguely restless during this whole discussion of
what means a person "is" poly (or not).
Though a devotee of Plato in other ways, I just don't think (most
of the time) in terms of a deep essence that one "is" or "isn't." And I
think this is especially true about sexual behavior, which can change over
time. I prefer Gore Vidal's approach, that no one "is" heterosexual or
homosexual--*acts* are oen or the other, and people perform acts.
This also reminds me of the difference in party-affiliation
between the USA and Britian (at least according to what I heard). In the
USA, you'll hear things like, "I'm republican, but I'm voting democrat
this year." In Britian, you'd instead hear, "I was labor last year, but
I'm conservative this year"--defined by how they voted, not by an abstract
affiliation.
Both of these approaches seem valid to me--that is, a rationally
sound way of using the language--though, at least when it comes to sex, I
tend to prefer the more act-dependant (British) approach. The difference
is a deeply philosophical one, so I doubt one approach will win over the
other in a net-discussion....
The main point I wanted to make, though, is that it doesn't seem
at all silly to me for someone to, say, be poly for six years, monogamous
for two, poly for one, monogamous for seven--as the circumstances change,
so will preferences. & that's what the terms define to me: preferences
and actions, not essentially different natures. (I've known too many
folks who have happily gone from either choice to the other.)
As far as people who are inclined but not active, why not put it
that way: "I like polyamory," "Polyamory fits me, intellectually and
emotionally," & so on?
One reason why I do like General Semantics is that the "is of
identity" does seem to cause more confusion than it is worth (that is, it
simplifies writing, but in a way that complicates communication). "I am
in a triad" is a description of events, and I'm comfortable with that; but
"I am a poly-person" can be taken as saying too much, too little, or both.
My approach is just to avoid that kind of construction, when possible.
Bernadette Bosky
Bernadette Bosky
<elun...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> wrote:
>
>In article <CD9Iz...@agora.rain.com>, chr...@agora.rain.com (Chris Andersen) writes:
>> Joe Avins (jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu) wrote:
>> <snip>
>> : I'm sure that (basically) all healthy adults are capable of loving
>> : more than one other person, but most suppress those feelings, or lie
>> : about them. The same *might* be true about same sex attraction, but
>> : this is not at all clear. (Most) Gays and bis don't choose to be,
>> : they discover it. Polies choose it. Gay or bi is what you are; poly
>> : is what you do.
>>
>> Sorry Joe but I must respectfully disagree.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>Count me as strongly* agreeing with Chris here. Poly isn't particularly a
>choice for me. I seem to be actually incapable of having long term (counted in
>years instead of months) monogamous relationships.
From this & other stuff, I'd guess that some people "naturally
are" either monogamous or polyamorous--by which I mean that their
personality inclines them to it so strongly that it's impossible or
nigh-impossible for them to change, and/or doesn't make much sense to even
try--and some people are in the middle enough to go either way, depending
on circumstances, partners or potential partners (& their preferences),
other things going on in life, "stage" the person is going through, and so
on. I wouldn't begin to guess at percentages (except to say that more
people in the "middle" category would choose poly if the society weren't
so set against it); but I do know people in all three groups, so I know
they exist.
The point in the original post that I wanted to disagree with--&
no one else seems to have (yet)--is that people who say they are by nature
monogamous are "suppressing" or lieing about their true feelings. No.
I've known people who are as basically monogamous as some folks here are
basically polyamorous. They weren't suppressing anything, and the serial
monogamous folks weren't being hypocritical--
Actually, one topic I've been "working on" (thinking about,
mulling, gnawing at, chewing like cud...) is *why* some people are so
inclined to monogamy or polyamory. It's easy to come up with condemning
answers (from either direction!), but they just don't ring true to me,
based on the people I know.
Anyway, I don't have any final answers, but maybe this is a good
place to kinda noodle around with the vague thoughts I do have.
It seems to me to have something to do with receiving, giving, and
channeling attention. Some people cannot handle intimate contact (sexual
or emotional) from more than one person at once; it confuses them, like
too many signals coming in for the receiver to sort out. This isn't a bad
thing--one-on-one, which is what they want, they do at least as well as
anyone else, and sometimes can get even more intimate than most people.
Other people like to integrate different kinds of contact--often, though
certainly not always, having a good go-between nature.
I think this is part of it (& wish I understood/could put it more
clearly). I also think that there's a difference in one's preference for
security vs. stimulation. Again, I don't think one choice is better than
the other, though it's certainly possible to describe either in both very
positive and very negative ways. Beyond overall preference, there's also
the choice of different preferences in different areas--for instance, I
like as much excitement and challenge in my life overall as I used to, but
it's much more likely to be in my writing/teaching/activism than in my
sexual life, which I like to think of as relatively calm & steady these
days. (As wonderful as it can be, meeting & making new partners takes time
& energy, which I'd rather put in other places nowadays.)
I also think that personal history (including family-of-origin)
plays a much bigger part than most people talk about, & I wish it were
possible to discuss this without seeming to pathologize either side.
Well, I've gone on long enough--looking forward to further
thoughts on this whole thing--
Bernadette Bosky
Elaine Erwin
>
> clearly). I also think that there's a difference in one's preference for
> security vs. stimulation. Again, I don't think one choice is better than
Oh boy, this is the big one my husband and I chip away at. We seem to be
at opposite ends of the spectrum a lot of the time which makes it appear
like a lot of conflict a bunch. Then, one day, a counselor we were seeing
suggested that we connect with partners who have something to teach us;
that our differences are really opportunities to teach each other. That
put everything into a much more tolerable light. I don't even care if it's
true. Through the differences in each other we can learn to come to a
better balance within ourselves.
Anyway, tangents aside, it's just this chasm between security and
stimulation that has been the biggest struggle in exploring polyamoury in
our lives recently. For someone who needs a lot of security, the chaos of
including other loves can be terribly frightening even if it's what they
want.
Elaine
///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
Elaine Erwin University of Oregon e...@oregon.uoregon.edu
"If my heart could do my thinking and my head begin to feel, well I'd look
upon the world anew and know what's truly real." - Van Morrison
\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///
Stef Jones
>Yes, restricting yourself to only one lover was a choice. This shows
>that a poly person can choose the number of lovers to have. But can a
>mono person make that choice? I think not. A truly mono person has no
>choice but to have only one lover.
That's too restrictive. First of all, we have seen that some poly people
-cannot- choose to have only one lover and remain contented. They might be
in a circumstance in which they have only one lover, but when someone else
comes along for them to fall in love with, they cannot choose not to.
Second, there are some people who prefer monogamy who in some
circumstances find themselves with more than one lover. But if they
represented themselves to potential partners as polyamorous, they would be
misleading those people, because as soon as a certain kind of relationship
got started, they would want to be monogamous.
Carol Suelzle
>>The point of this personal history is that poly or mono is a choice,
>>not a characteristic that one either has or does not.
>I should state first that I agree with you on this one. I was very
>happily monogamous with Chris for some time before I met Iain. I didn't
>feel like something was missing from my life. I wasn't even
>particularly attracted to anyone else. It didn't feel like things
>weren't complete until I did come to fall in love with Iain, and even
>then I was very aware that what was missing was *Iain*, and not "another
>person". I, too, feel that while homosexuality is a sexual orientation,
>polyamory is a choice one makes based on one's feelings and one's
>present situation. To me, polyamory describes one's relationship
>*situation*, not one's relationship *orientation*. Someone who is in a
>sexual-loving relationship that permits other sexual-loving
>relationships is polyamorous.
This has been my experience too. It's a choice I made because the other
options were *not* pleasant. I do have a question though - do you feel
settled now, or are you expecting to add more people (as lovers) to your
life? I personally am not expecting on adding anyone. I feel as if I'm
dual-monogamus (bi-monogamus?). (eeek, labels!) I still feel all the same
feelings - for better for worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health,
till death do us part, it's just with 'us three', instead of 'us two'.
Carol
Lars Peter Fischer
>>>>> "Jon" == Jon Harley (harl...@sun1.bham.ac.uk)
Jon> But do poly people start off by thinking "I want to be in a
Jon> relationship with at least 2 other people"... or is it purely
Jon> learnt by experience?
I don't believe being poly, to me, has to do with wanting any
particular relationship, with any particular number of people. As far
back as I can remember, the idea of "one single mate for life" or even
"one single mate at a time" has seemed completely absurd. It took me a
*lot* of effort to understand that anyone would ever do such a thing
of their own free will. As a kid, when hearing about the classical
dramas where jealousy is involved, I simple didn't get what all the
fuss was about. It just didn't make any sense.
At one point, when I discovered such a thing as "conformity" I
believed I had found the answer: "Ah, people are just giving in to all
this Christian nonsense. Pah!". Ghod, did I look down at all these
fool. Ghod, did I feel superior and strong.
It took me some real hard effort to learn and accept that some people
really feel this way, that some people *are* mono. This, to me, was a
real shock, something that lead me to rethink my views on sexuality
and my views on other people in general. Learning that, just because
poly is the *only* option to me, not everyone feels that way was my
ticket to diversity.
Jon> (I suppose by finding a relationship with 1 person unfulfilling)?
No. I currently have a a wonderful, completely fulfilling relationship
with only one person. But I can't promise that she will be the only
one forever, I can't say there will not be another lover tomorrow or a
year from now. I don't know, but I *do* know that I would violate
something very fundamental in myself if I gave such a promise. I also
know that I would never ask, much less demand, such a promise from
anyone else -- I simply can't find a good reason to.
Lars Peter Fischer
>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Avins (jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu)
Joe> Poly is a state of mind that one may choose. [...]
Joe> Can any other-than-heteros comment here?
I believe I have said as much in other posts, but let mu just repeat:
I don't believe my being poly is any more of a choice than my being
bi. I do, in fact, believe that poly lies deeper in me than bi.
Don Wilkinson
[snip stuff about Kinsey scale-like range of poly vs. mono]
: The point in the original post that I wanted to disagree with--&
: no one else seems to have (yet)--is that people who say they are by nature
: monogamous are "suppressing" or lieing about their true feelings. No.
: I've known people who are as basically monogamous as some folks here are
: basically polyamorous. They weren't suppressing anything, and the serial
: monogamous folks weren't being hypocritical--
It probably doesn't really need to be said, but some (few?) people *do*
suppress and/or are hypocritical. Too bad our world lead them act that way.
: Actually, one topic I've been "working on" (thinking about,
: mulling, gnawing at, chewing like cud...) is *why* some people are so
: inclined to monogamy or polyamory. It's easy to come up with condemning
: answers (from either direction!), but they just don't ring true to me,
: based on the people I know.
: Anyway, I don't have any final answers, but maybe this is a good
: place to kinda noodle around with the vague thoughts I do have.
: It seems to me to have something to do with receiving, giving, and
: channeling attention. Some people cannot handle intimate contact (sexual
: or emotional) from more than one person at once; it confuses them, like
: too many signals coming in for the receiver to sort out. This isn't a bad
: thing--one-on-one, which is what they want, they do at least as well as
: anyone else, and sometimes can get even more intimate than most people.
: Other people like to integrate different kinds of contact--often, though
: certainly not always, having a good go-between nature.
Sounds like we have reached some of the same conclusions. Analogizing it
to radio as you did, it would as though some were single channel models,
others had more than one channel to work with. Putting aside the subsequent
issue of "relative reception strength" for a moment-- I would comment
on the comparative value judgment that leaps to most people's minds in this
case.
If one is comparing that which deals with single entities and that
which can handle more, there is an almost inescapable tendency to believe
the latter is 'better' than the former. This may serve to explain why
there are things like "bi-supremacy" and "poly-supremacy". Funny thing
about this is that it a Bi/poly person need not overtly or subtly
infer s/he believes in "numerical superiority" and yet the mono/non-poly
person will be on the defensive. Being aware that one subscribes to that
which is, by our collective way of seeing things, as being (numerically)
inferior, one might cop a 'tude. :)
Now, as to the "... sometimes can get even more intimate than most people"
I realize _you_ are not making any particular judgment or value statement,
but, i would like to discuss this. I only quote you to make context. :)
Several non-poly people I know and I have discussed this. Many of them
are of the opinion that poly people are simply not "serious" about
their relationships. That one must FOCUS on ONE person in order to achieve
the deeps of intimacy that are not otherwise possible. What do you think?
Of course, being non-mono, I dispute that argument. But, having very little
real world experience (dating two women simultaneously for a few months
hardly counts in my mind) I can not tangibly support my position. I
guess hat is partly why I seek a poly family - I want to find out if this
really is for me. I feel it is - but I can not be sure. <shrug>
: I think this is part of it (& wish I understood/could put it more
: clearly). I also think that there's a difference in one's preference for
: security vs. stimulation. Again, I don't think one choice is better than
: the other, though it's certainly possible to describe either in both very
: positive and very negative ways. Beyond overall preference, there's also
: the choice of different preferences in different areas--for instance, I
: like as much excitement and challenge in my life overall as I used to, but
: it's much more likely to be in my writing/teaching/activism than in my
: sexual life, which I like to think of as relatively calm & steady these
: days. (As wonderful as it can be, meeting & making new partners takes time
: & energy, which I'd rather put in other places nowadays.)
: I also think that personal history (including family-of-origin)
: plays a much bigger part than most people talk about, & I wish it were
: possible to discuss this without seeming to pathologize either side.
: Well, I've gone on long enough--looking forward to further
: thoughts on this whole thing--
: Bernadette Bosky
- Bear
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lord...@netcom.com | 699 San Juan Dr. #3, Sunnyvale, CA 94086; 408-245-BEAR
Bi, poly, pagan, dom/switch. "My moral standing is lying down" -Depeche Mode
"I think food is very sensual -- one of many fine oral pleasures;
May I make you dinner tonight... or would you rather be dessert?"
Elaine Erwin
Wilkinson) wrote:
>
> Now, as to the "... sometimes can get even more intimate than most people"
> I realize _you_ are not making any particular judgment or value statement,
> but, i would like to discuss this. I only quote you to make context. :)
> Several non-poly people I know and I have discussed this. Many of them
> are of the opinion that poly people are simply not "serious" about
> their relationships. That one must FOCUS on ONE person in order to achieve
> the deeps of intimacy that are not otherwise possible. What do you think?
I wish I had some terribly eloquent way of saying that I think poly people,
as a group, are *very* serious about their relationships. I venture that
achieving deep levels of intimacy is much more a function of how willing I
am to be intimate than how many I am being intimate with. Another way of
looking at it is that I see the ability to be intimate as an ability within
me that is not diluted by numbers. Either I can be intimate or I cannot to
any given level. Sounds plausible at the moment though I've never quite
stated it like that before.
Jennifer Lynn Dailey
>I venture that
>achieving deep levels of intimacy is much more a function of how willing I
>am to be intimate than how many I am being intimate with.
Well, sure. But it also has something to do with how much you're
willing to let your "night job" cut into your day job. ;-)
Just me, the frustrated graduate student,
Lynn
[Three statements that poly is a choice. Part of Carol's statement is
repeat as a springboard]
>
>This has been my experience too. It's a choice I made because the other
>options were *not* pleasant.
This is very interesting. This seems to indicate that you (and maybe
the other two people who said poly is a choice) separate the idea of
polyamory from the behavior.
Maybe it is too fine a line between "state of being" and decision
making. You loved some number of people with whom you shared some kind
of poly relationship because the options were *not* pleasant.
That would certainly indicate that you are polyamorous. We shouldn't
be defining (and the FAQ doesn't) polyamorous as a type of behavior.
It is the ability to love more than one person at a time.
Lynn
--
The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter.
-- Mark Twain
Teresa
> <a bunch of interesting stuff deleted>
Yes, you have hit the nail exactly on the head. At least for me. I feel
personally as if part of my reason for being monogamous has to do with
attention span. I feel as though I can concentrate on only one person at
a time. I have a large number of wonderful friends, I love them all...
but even in friendships I have been known to concentrate on one at a time
(sometimes to the detriment of the others).
> I think this is part of it (& wish I understood/could put it more
> clearly). I also think that there's a difference in one's preference for
> security vs. stimulation. Again, I don't think one choice is better than
> the other, though it's certainly possible to describe either in both very
> positive and very negative ways. Beyond overall preference, there's also
> the choice of different preferences in different areas--for instance, I
> like as much excitement and challenge in my life overall as I used to, but
> it's much more likely to be in my writing/teaching/activism than in my
> sexual life, which I like to think of as relatively calm & steady these
> days. (As wonderful as it can be, meeting & making new partners takes time
> & energy, which I'd rather put in other places nowadays.)
> I also think that personal history (including family-of-origin)
> plays a much bigger part than most people talk about, & I wish it were
> possible to discuss this without seeming to pathologize either side.
> Well, I've gone on long enough--looking forward to further
> thoughts on this whole thing--
Thanks Bernadette for a thought provoking post.
Don Wilkinson
[ snip ]
: I wish I had some terribly eloquent way of saying that I think poly people,
: as a group, are *very* serious about their relationships. I venture that
: achieving deep levels of intimacy is much more a function of how willing I
: am to be intimate than how many I am being intimate with. Another way of
: looking at it is that I see the ability to be intimate as an ability within
: me that is not diluted by numbers. Either I can be intimate or I cannot to
: any given level. Sounds plausible at the moment though I've never quite
: stated it like that before.
: Elaine
I like your 2nd and 3rd sentences above. Just about two hours ago I spent
2 hours on the phone with my (recently relocated 400 miles away to go to
school) g/f talking about poly.etc. One of the things I tried to describe
was my feeling that intimacy was not a function of numbers. That, in a
given moment in space and time i could be completely intimate with whomever
I happen to be with at that time. When with someone else, I would and could
be equally intimate with that person. The existence of another person in
my life at a very intimate place does not, at this point, automatically
degrade or usurp the experience I can have with "you".
Another way of saying this might be: My love does not come from a
fixed-volume vessel. The more I love, the more I can love.
(I too wish I could be more eloquent right now :))
Many who know me describe me as having a "huge heart". Just last night I
spent the evening with a new romantic interest. She and I also discussed
relationships and such. As we have talked in the past, she knows my views
on "open relationships" She seemed to sort of "envy" the concept of
being able to love, and love deeply, a number of people. As I perceived
it, she found that prospect appealing and beautiful ( as do I).
Even my g/f says she would LIKE to be poly - but doesn't feel that she is
capable of it. She acknowledges the great amount of internal and external
work that it takes to make it work. I guess it is just not for everyone.
(duh). And even those who believe it makes sense for them, or for whom
it "just happens", one can expect special challenges. :)
I happen to believe it is for me. I am, to the best of my ability, aware
of the difficulties, and prepared to face them. I do not expect it to be
easy. However, I hope that, if it follows my vision, is will be worth it.
Hearing from those whom it seems to be working strengthens my hope.
Funny thing, too; as my g/f would be eager to point out, the experience
I have had so far suggests I have a LONG way to go before I can exist
"comfortably" in a non-monogamous venture. You see, despite my evangel-
ising about non-monogamy, I have a lot of insecurity and jealousy issues
to deal with. However, I resolved to deal with them; recognizing that
they are only symptoms of problems with my psyche. If I can heal some of
those wounds, then I will be a better person. If I have to endure the
challenge to reach the goal, then I am resolved to do so; pain be damned!
- Bear
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lord...@netcom.com | 699 San Juan Dr. #3, Sunnyvale, CA 94086; 408-245-BEAR
Bi, poly, pagan, dom/swi. "My moral standing is lying down" -Nine Inch Nails
Lars Peter Fischer
>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Peter Fischer (fis...@iesd.auc.dk)
>>>>> "Stef" == Stef Jones (st...@netcom.com)
Lars> Yes, restricting yourself to only one lover was a choice. This
Lars> shows that a poly person can choose the number of lovers to
Lars> have. But can a mono person make that choice? I think not. A
Lars> truly mono person has no choice but to have only one lover.
Stef> That's too restrictive.
Yes, I know -- I was over-generalizing, and I was putting my words
badly. Instead of "a poly person" I should have said "some poly
persons" and so on.
Stef> First of all, we have seen that some poly people -cannot-
Stef> choose to have only one lover and remain contented.
True.
Stef> Second, there are some people who prefer monogamy who in some
Stef> circumstances find themselves with more than one lover.
Well, yes, but then they will have an internal conflict between the
wish for monogamy and the present situation.
What I was trying to say was that, in general, poly or mono is *not* a
choice. Some poly people can choose to have only one partner, some
cannot. Some mono people can live with the conflict of having more
than one partner. There might even be people who change over time, by
choice or by chance. But, at least for some, being mono or poly is no
more a choice than being bi or het.
Ofer Inbar
>Yes, you have hit the nail exactly on the head. At least for me. I feel
>personally as if part of my reason for being monogamous has to do with
>attention span. I feel as though I can concentrate on only one person at
>a time. I have a large number of wonderful friends, I love them all...
>but even in friendships I have been known to concentrate on one at a time
>(sometimes to the detriment of the others).
However, I doubt this explains the majority of monogamous people.
If this is the reason you feel monogamous, then you have no problem
with your partner being poly, right? For most mono people, that isn't
the case; they expect their partner to be monogamous too. That can't
be caused by the "attention span" thing alone, unless they're also
insecure/incomprehending and believe that just as they can't give the
proper attention to more than one person, neither can anyone else.
Though once again, if that were it, then most mono people could learn
to deal with a poly partner after a little bit of experience, and
again, I don't think that's the case for most of them.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- c...@cs.brandeis.edu
-- WBRS (BRiS) -- WB...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu WB...@brandeis.bitnet
Love: a blurring of the distinction between selfish and selfless.
Ofer Inbar
year of high school, in a small New Jersey town. Up until then, she
had even dated guys, and although the physical part of the
relationships were never very much, she had little to compare against
and had no idea why this was.
I think a large part of the reason it took her so long to discover
her sexual preference is that she did not personally know any
homosexuals or bisexuals (or at least ones who were out), and the
whole concept was a distant and often looked down upon one, in her
environment. But, she had one major advantage over potentially
polyamorous people - she at least knew there was such a thing as
homosexuality.
It may be difficult for a lot of us to relate to, in our current
environments, but try to think back. Most people simply have no
concept of poly relationships. They have no idea that longterm poly
rlationships exist, that some of them own homes, have children, etc.
It's not something their peers look down on, like homosexuality; it's
something their peers never mention and have probably never heard of
either.
I believe there are a lot of polyamorous people out there, who just
don't know it. Just because they haven't discovered it, doesn't make
them any less poly than my friend was lesbian. And if that's true,
then not practicing poly after you *have* discovered it doesn't make
you not poly, either, right?. Or at least, that's the way I'm going
to use the word, because it's the only way that seems useful to me.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- c...@cs.brandeis.edu
-- WBRS (BRiS) -- WB...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu WB...@brandeis.bitnet
Real life? Which channel is that on?
Lynn
>
>I wish I had some terribly eloquent way of saying that I think poly people,
>as a group, are *very* serious about their relationships. I venture that
>achieving deep levels of intimacy is much more a function of how willing I
>am to be intimate than how many I am being intimate with. Another way of
>looking at it is that I see the ability to be intimate as an ability within
>me that is not diluted by numbers. Either I can be intimate or I cannot to
>any given level. Sounds plausible at the moment though I've never quite
>stated it like that before.
>
Let us examine "intimacy." If we are talking about emotional rather
than physical intimacy, then numbers can't dilute it. Emotional
intimacy is what happens when two or more people are open and honest
with each other.
We like to use the word "intimacy" only in connection with a TureLove
relationhip. But intimacy can be achieved within the context of many
kinds of relationships. The most obvious examples are group therapy
sessions and meetings of 12-step programs. Any time that we allow
ourselves to be vulnerable to another human being is an intimate time.
This is a goal. We should strive to be intimate with everyone. One
level of love available for everyone. When intimacy has been achieved
between two people, then the feelings of love and affection can be
expressed freely and openly. This does not mean that everyone can be
everyone's life partner. It does not mean that everyone should strive
to be poly (as it is usually defined around here.) But it does mean
that we should strive to be open and free and communicative.
Love long and prosper,
Lynn
--
If we don't change our direction we are likely to end up where we are
headed.
Joe Avins
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 20:30:54 GMT
Martin Schafer (sch...@ns.network.com) wrote:
: As usual, my reaction [to "Is being poly a choice?"]
: is yes and no. There are several
: different spectrums involved. Does the idea of being involved
: with more than partner seem intellectually impossible? unappealing?
: possible? appealing? Do you choose where you fall on this spectrum?
: probably not.
In time, probably yes. I never meant to say that that decision
was easy.
: Does being in love with one person and having a "good"
: relationship with them preclude, impede, have no affect on, enhance,
: your ability to fall in love with someone else? And subset of this
: area: Can you recognize people and situations that you are like to
: fall in love with/in before you have gotten yourself involved in it,
: with them? and if you can: Do you avoid/accept if they come along/
: or seek out those people/situations?
This last is the main point. To me, being poly is being open
to more than one romantic/sexual relationship at a time. I believe
that nearly everyone is capable of it, and that nearly everyone is
capable of closing him/herself off to it. Most people who can't
open up are, imho, artificially limited by convention, religion,
what have you. Most people who can't close up are, imho, immaturely
ruled by their emotions. (I know I've just offended a number
of people. I'm sory, but I calls'm like I sees'm.) Being
open or closed to multiple relationships is a choice that most
people should be able to make either way.
: that seems to me to be a choice. Of course the real proof of the
: pudding is if you find yourself, while still loving your current
: partner, in love with another person, do you stay with your partner
: and reject the new love? reject your partner and run off with the
: new love? or try to arrange a polyamorous relationship with both?
: While this last is clearly a choice, the choice will be determined
: by your internal emotional cost/benefit calculations, your experience
: and your imagination, which are tied to things that are not choices.
: And finally when you arrange a polyamorous relationship with both
: of them, does it work? And that is also partly determined by the
: choices of the three parties, and partly by the temperment of the
: three parties.
: So is polyamory a choice or innate?
The distinction depends more than a little on the definition
of polyamorous, which I don't think has been, by any meaans,
settled.
: I don't think it's a useful distinction.
You may be right.
Joe Avins
jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Joe Avins
: As usual, my reaction [to "Is being poly a choice?"]
: is yes and no. There are several
: different spectrums involved. Does the idea of being involved
: with more than partner seem intellectually impossible? unappealing?
: possible? appealing? Do you choose where you fall on this spectrum?
: probably not.
In time, probably yes. I never meant to say that that decision
was easy.
: Does being in love with one person and having a "good"
: relationship with them preclude, impede, have no affect on, enhance,
: your ability to fall in love with someone else? And subset of this
: area: Can you recognize people and situations that you are like to
: fall in love with/in before you have gotten yourself involved in it,
: with them? and if you can: Do you avoid/accept if they come along/
: or seek out those people/situations?
This last is the main point. To me, being poly is being open
to more than one romantic/sexual relationship at a time. I believe
that nearly everyone is capable of it, and that nearly everyone is
capable of closing him/herself off to it. Most people who can't
open up are, imho, artificially limited by convention, religion,
what have you. Most people who can't close up are, imho, immaturely
ruled by their emotions. (I know I've just offended a number
of people. I'm sory, but I calls'm like I sees'm.) Being
open or closed to multiple relationships is a choice that most
people should be able to make either way.
: that seems to me to be a choice. Of course the real proof of the
: pudding is if you find yourself, while still loving your current
: partner, in love with another person, do you stay with your partner
: and reject the new love? reject your partner and run off with the
: new love? or try to arrange a polyamorous relationship with both?
: While this last is clearly a choice, the choice will be determined
: by your internal emotional cost/benefit calculations, your experience
: and your imagination, which are tied to things that are not choices.
: And finally when you arrange a polyamorous relationship with both
: of them, does it work? And that is also partly determined by the
: choices of the three parties, and partly by the temperment of the
: three parties.
: So is polyamory a choice or innate?
The distinction depends more than a little on the definition
Joe Avins
: In article <1993Sep14...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>,
: <elun...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> wrote:
: >
: >In article <CD9Iz...@agora.rain.com>, chr...@agora.rain.com (Chris Andersen) writes:
: >> Joe Avins (jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu) wrote:
: >> <snip>
: >> : I'm sure that (basically) all healthy adults are capable of loving
: >> : more than one other person, but most suppress those feelings, or lie
: >> : about them. The same *might* be true about same sex attraction, but
: >> : this is not at all clear. (Most) Gays and bis don't choose to be,
: >> : they discover it. Polies choose it. Gay or bi is what you are; poly
: >> : is what you do.
: From this & other stuff, I'd guess that some people "naturally
: are" either monogamous or polyamorous--by which I mean that their
: personality inclines them to it so strongly that it's impossible or
: nigh-impossible for them to change, and/or doesn't make much sense to even
: try--and some people are in the middle enough to go either way, depending
: on circumstances, partners or potential partners (& their preferences),
: other things going on in life, "stage" the person is going through, and so
: on. I wouldn't begin to guess at percentages (except to say that more
: people in the "middle" category would choose poly if the society weren't
: so set against it); but I do know people in all three groups, so I know
: they exist.
I basically agree with this; there are surely people in each catagory.
I do think, though, that the "naturally" one way or the other groups
are smaller than most people seem to think. Lots of people who think
they are naturally one or the other have not put themselves into
positions to test it. I'm not trying to deride anyone, but I stil
think most people could choose either way if they really wanted to.
Joe Avins
jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Joe Avins
[big snip]
: The more I love, the more I can love.
: (I too wish I could be more eloquent right now :))
More eloquent than that is a pretty tall order.
Joe Avins
jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Stef Jones
>ter...@wndrsvr.la.ca.us (Teresa) writes:
>>I feel
>>personally as if part of my reason for being monogamous has to do with
>>attention span. I feel as though I can concentrate on only one person at
>>a time. I have a large number of wonderful friends, I love them all...
>>but even in friendships I have been known to concentrate on one at a time
> However, I doubt this explains the majority of monogamous people.
>If this is the reason you feel monogamous, then you have no problem
>with your partner being poly, right? For most mono people, that isn't
>the case; they expect their partner to be monogamous too. That can't
>be caused by the "attention span" thing alone [...]
I think it can be. I prefer monogamy when I have a partner, because in a
partnership, I want to concentrate my romantic energy on that person. But
if my partner is spending time and energy with other lovers, we can't
create the same level of concentration and focus with each other. To
create that, both (or all) the people involved need to be equally
committed. (At least that has been my experience.)
It's not a question of "a finite amount of love." It is more a matter of a
finite amount of time, and of something interesting that happens when two
people (or more, no doubt) focus all their romantic energy on each other --
something I haven't experienced in open relationships.
--
Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
Mushrooms are hard to find except when you eat them,
and then they LITERALLY grow in front of you... If you
don't eat the first mushroom you find, then you won't
find any more...
Stef Jones
>What I was trying to say was that, in general, poly or mono is *not* a
>choice. Some poly people can choose to have only one partner, some
>cannot. Some mono people can live with the conflict of having more
>than one partner. There might even be people who change over time, by
>choice or by chance. But, at least for some, being mono or poly is no
>more a choice than being bi or het.
I don't agree with your statement that "in general" poly or mono is not a
choice. I think that "in general" it *is* a choice. Yes, there are some
people for whom it is not a choice. I think there are fewer such people.
But there's no way for us to prove who's right, so let's just chalk it up
to different experiences.
--
Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
If you've got to wear a sign 'round your neck saying
you is, you ain't. -- Pearl Bailey
Bernadette Bosky
>c...@cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>
>>ter...@wndrsvr.la.ca.us (Teresa) writes:
>>>I feel
>>>personally as if part of my reason for being monogamous has to do with
>>>attention span. I feel as though I can concentrate on only one person at
>>>a time. I have a large number of wonderful friends, I love them all...
>>>but even in friendships I have been known to concentrate on one at a time
>
>> However, I doubt this explains the majority of monogamous people.
>>If this is the reason you feel monogamous, then you have no problem
>>with your partner being poly, right? For most mono people, that isn't
>>the case; they expect their partner to be monogamous too. That can't
>>be caused by the "attention span" thing alone [...]
>
>I think it can be. I prefer monogamy when I have a partner, because in a
>partnership, I want to concentrate my romantic energy on that person. But
>if my partner is spending time and energy with other lovers, we can't
>create the same level of concentration and focus with each other. To
>create that, both (or all) the people involved need to be equally
>committed. (At least that has been my experience.)
>
>It's not a question of "a finite amount of love." It is more a matter of a
>finite amount of time, and of something interesting that happens when two
>people (or more, no doubt) focus all their romantic energy on each other --
>something I haven't experienced in open relationships.
>
two points, but I couldn't find the right words & didn't want to mess with
the wrong ones. I'm not wired that way myself, but I think I can
understand it, not just intellectually but emotionally as well. Some of
my similar-but-different thoughts on the matter:
1) I've sometimes said, especially when Arthur & I first settled
down together, "I'm not jealous; I'm greedy." That is, my relationship
with him was qualitatively different from any other, & his mere presence
gave me joy. (Still does, actually.) Given that, I wanted to minimize
his time away from me, no matter what it was for. (That's why I'd only
become serious with a lover who could accept it being a threesome, and
ended up in a triad with Kevin & Arthur. The right FMF threesome never
has come up, and we're kinda lazy about other partners now anyway.) If I
were monogamous & felt this way, of *course* I wouldn't want my partner to
be poly--no benefit for me, and I just have to miss my partner! (This is
assuming that intimacy needs are equal, or nearly so.)
2) I do see what you mean about wonderful things that come when
romantic energy is focussed. My guess is that it's a matter of minimum
amount, rather than all or nothing--but that in some people, the minimum
amount of energy they need to focus *is* pretty much all they can give.
Is this at all clear?
I *wish* that sayings like "the more I love, the more I can love"
were factually 100% true--& maybe it's good to say them anyway, so that we
can approach that goal more and more closely. But in my experience, the
limitless emotion is limited in its *expression,* by time and energy. Not
only do relationships compete with each other in this way, but
relationships and other things all compete--jobs, hobbies, reading,
housework, and so on. (For instance, I haven't worked a regular 40-hour
job since before our triad, and I sometimes wonder if I could have the
household I do if I did have to put that much time and energy into work.
Maybe, but I kinda think not.) I used to be annoyed at these limitations;
now I sorta live with them, and make the best priorities I can.
My point--I had a point here--
I guess just that both poly and monogamy seem like valid choices,
in a world where we have to make so many choices because time and energy
are finite. And/but I don't think there's anything special about
focussing "all" one's attention on someone (or one household)--because
it's not really "all" your attention, anyway, at most just all of one kind
of attention. But I *do* think there's something very special about
focussing *enough* of one's attention/being into a relationship--some
people do this best in mono, some in poly, depending on a great number of
factors.
Bernadette Bosky
Ofer Inbar
>In article <stefCD...@netcom.com>, Stef Jones <st...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>c...@cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>>
>>>ter...@wndrsvr.la.ca.us (Teresa) writes:
>>>>personally as if part of my reason for being monogamous has to do with
>>>>attention span. I feel as though I can concentrate on only one person at
>>>>a time. I have a large number of wonderful friends, I love them all...
>>>
>>>If this is the reason you feel monogamous, then you have no problem
>>>with your partner being poly, right? For most mono people, that isn't
>>>the case; they expect their partner to be monogamous too. That can't
>>>be caused by the "attention span" thing alone [...]
>>
>>I think it can be. I prefer monogamy when I have a partner, because in a
>>partnership, I want to concentrate my romantic energy on that person. But
>>if my partner is spending time and energy with other lovers, we can't
>>create the same level of concentration and focus with each other. To
The key here is "it can be." This may be the case for *you*, but
once again I really doubt it explains the feelings of the majority of
monogamous people. If that were the case, all that would be required
is that the lover gave you enough attention or energy. Whether
his/her other time was spent in hobbies, with friends, or with another
lover, shouldn't make as big a difference as it does to most people.
I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem very "normal" to
me (and please, take that as a compliment :)
> My point--I had a point here--
> I guess just that both poly and monogamy seem like valid choices,
>in a world where we have to make so many choices because time and energy
>are finite. And/but I don't think there's anything special about
>focussing "all" one's attention on someone (or one household)--because
>it's not really "all" your attention, anyway, at most just all of one kind
>of attention. But I *do* think there's something very special about
>focussing *enough* of one's attention/being into a relationship--some
>people do this best in mono, some in poly, depending on a great number of
>factors.
Yeah, what she said! Of course monogamy is a valid choice.
However, I see a lot of people forcing monogamy on other people and
I'm trying to understand their reasons. As you said, it's not
possible to focus *all* one's attention on another person, so the
point is to put *enough* attention into a relationship to make it work
well. Some people do this best in monogamy - notice how that's
centered on the person, not their lover. Just because one person
chooses monogamy because that's how they do best at focusing ther
attention, doesn't mean they should automatically disqualify a partner
who can do equally well without being monogamous. But, that is what
most mono people do. It's not that they try to see if they would get
anouch attention, or have a successful relationship, with a poly
partner. It's more like, "if you want anyone else, you can't have me
too, no exceptions."
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- c...@cs.brandeis.edu
All genre ethnic diversity...
24 hours/day, 365 days/year programming...
FREE live music four times weekly...
WBRS in Waltham, FM 100 in stereo, your FM connection with the world.
Don Wilkinson
[snip of discussion of attention span and needs]
: 1) I've sometimes said, especially when Arthur & I first settled
: down together, "I'm not jealous; I'm greedy." That is, my relationship
: with him was qualitatively different from any other, & his mere presence
: gave me joy. (Still does, actually.) Given that, I wanted to minimize
: his time away from me, no matter what it was for. (That's why I'd only
: become serious with a lover who could accept it being a threesome, and
: ended up in a triad with Kevin & Arthur. The right FMF threesome never
: has come up, and we're kinda lazy about other partners now anyway.) If I
: were monogamous & felt this way, of *course* I wouldn't want my partner to
: be poly--no benefit for me, and I just have to miss my partner! (This is
: assuming that intimacy needs are equal, or nearly so.)
That is a rather substantial assumption, now isn't it? :)
This to me has always been a point of contention in any conversation
about the merits or detractors of monogamy. "What do you do if you
are not getting your affection/intimacy/sex needs met?" Most every
monogamist I have talked to kind of looked bewildered and muttered
something about "compromise" or "sacrifice for Love" or somesuch, while
looking forlorn and confused. It always appeared to me that the real
message was "Well, then I guess you'd just be unfulfilled -- them's
the rules."
There is a scenario where I question the need for rigid monogamy and
sexual exclusivity. All other things being equal, if two people have
largely different libidos, etc., why not allow for one's needs to be
met outside the relationship? (Even better from within it, vis-a-vis a
triad, of course) It's the tale of the veteran who loses his manhood in
war. He permits his lady a lover so that she can be fulfilled. I think
that is a beautiful expression of Love.
: 2) I do see what you mean about wonderful things that come when
: romantic energy is focussed. My guess is that it's a matter of minimum
: amount, rather than all or nothing--but that in some people, the minimum
: amount of energy they need to focus *is* pretty much all they can give.
: Is this at all clear?
SAY! That is a very interesting perspective. Hmmmm I think I like it!
I must admit, though, my initial reaction is arrogant smugness. I find
myself feeling superior because I believe I have "more" love to give
than those "poor monogamists." Please slap me so I wake up. :)
IF it is indeed a case where some people have more than the "minimum"
to give, what should one do with the rest? Is that where poly comes in?
The monos that I have asked this to said: "Pour it all into your
existing relationship". But, somehow, this doesn't work for me. Maybe
it has to do with the concept that (my) love is multi-dimensional. I
can see where some of my Love expression would have little or no value
for a particular person, whereas it would for another.
One aspect of most of my relationships in the past has been that I have
had to repress one or more areas of my identity and existence. This and/or
that about me was something that my partner could not share with me, and
possibly "forbade" me to engage in. Now, while I have lately come to the
idea that I am not willing to sacrifice certain things, I doubt the sanity
of anyone who says I can hope to find a partner who will love me as I am,
altogether. I am too hopeless to buy into that.
(What does this have to do with any thing? Sorry.. needed to vent, I guess)
I think what I mean to say is that with being poly, I see a better chance
to express the diversity of myself via multiple "forums". For me,
the concept of being nearly completely compatible with only one person seems
an unattainable goal.
: I *wish* that sayings like "the more I love, the more I can love"
: were factually 100% true--& maybe it's good to say them anyway, so that we
: can approach that goal more and more closely. But in my experience, the
: limitless emotion is limited in its *expression,* by time and energy. Not
: only do relationships compete with each other in this way, but
: relationships and other things all compete--jobs, hobbies, reading,
: housework, and so on. (For instance, I haven't worked a regular 40-hour
: job since before our triad, and I sometimes wonder if I could have the
: household I do if I did have to put that much time and energy into work.
: Maybe, but I kinda think not.) I used to be annoyed at these limitations;
: now I sorta live with them, and make the best priorities I can.
: My point--I had a point here--
: I guess just that both poly and monogamy seem like valid choices,
: in a world where we have to make so many choices because time and energy
: are finite. And/but I don't think there's anything special about
: focussing "all" one's attention on someone (or one household)--because
: it's not really "all" your attention, anyway, at most just all of one kind
: of attention. But I *do* think there's something very special about
: focussing *enough* of one's attention/being into a relationship--some
: people do this best in mono, some in poly, depending on a great number of
: factors.
: Bernadette Bosky
Once again, Bernadette, you demonstrate yourself to be a truly insightful and
thoughtful person. Whether I like it or not (and I do -- being sarcastic)
you are teaching me to understand and respect monogamy :)
- Bear
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lord...@netcom.com | 699 San Juan Dr. #3, Sunnyvale, CA 94086; 408-245-BEAR
Bi, poly, pagan, dom/switch. (Don'cha just love using labels -- so helpful!)
"Don't assume I'm straight, don't assume I'm gay -- I'm the guy in the gray"
Jennifer Lynn Dailey
>Not
>only do relationships compete with each other in this way, but
>relationships and other things all compete--jobs, hobbies, reading,
>housework, and so on. (For instance, I haven't worked a regular 40-hour
>job since before our triad, and I sometimes wonder if I could have the
>household I do if I did have to put that much time and energy into work.
>Maybe, but I kinda think not.) I used to be annoyed at these limitations;
>now I sorta live with them, and make the best priorities I can.
Boy, do I understand that. I'm a full-time wife, a full-time Ph.D.
student, and a part-time German teacher. I think I'm going to go crazy
with the pressure sometimes. And what ends up getting removed from my
life, almost completely? Usenet ... I miss you guys. <sniff>
Jenner
regard to equity in the relationships I have. It keeps me
busy enough.
jenner
Jenner
Joe Avins <jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu> wrote:
>Don Wilkinson (lord...@netcom.com) wrote:
>[big snip]
>: The more I love, the more I can love.
>: (I too wish I could be more eloquent right now :))
>
>More eloquent than that is a pretty tall order.
The more I love, the more I can love. Sometimes, though,
they just may have to take a number.
jenner
(who is more practical than eloquent)
>
> Joe Avins
> jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Joe Avins
[Big Snip]
: I *wish* that sayings like "the more I love, the more I can love"
: were factually 100% true--& maybe it's good to say them anyway, so that we
: can approach that goal more and more closely. But in my experience, the
: limitless emotion is limited in its *expression,* by time and energy.
But isn't the emotion itself still lim- well, very nearly limitless?
The expression is, of course, very important. But isn't Bear's
quote, as far as it goes, about 99&44/100% true anyhow?
: I guess just that both poly and monogamy seem like valid choices,
: in a world where we have to make so many choices because time and energy
Ahah! You said poly is a choice!
Okay, I'll stop harping on this now.
Joe Avins
jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Stef Jones
>This to me has always been a point of contention in any conversation
>about the merits or detractors of monogamy. "What do you do if you
>are not getting your affection/intimacy/sex needs met?" [...]
>There is a scenario where I question the need for rigid monogamy and
>sexual exclusivity. All other things being equal, if two people have
>largely different libidos, etc., why not allow for one's needs to be
>met outside the relationship?
It's fine to "allow" for it. But some people really want their
affection/intimacy/sex needs met by one person, and seeking those things
from people outside the primary relationship doesn't satisfy them as
much.
>Bernadette Bosky (b...@panix.com) wrote:
>: 2) I do see what you mean about wonderful things that come when
>: romantic energy is focussed. My guess is that it's a matter of minimum
>: amount, rather than all or nothing--but that in some people, the minimum
>: amount of energy they need to focus *is* pretty much all they can give.
>: Is this at all clear?
For me, it is not an issue of "amount" of energy. Deliberately closing
the circuits, saying that this energy will remain entirely within this
relationship, can create an intensification of the energy that's very
wonderful and satisfying.
However, that only works in specific kinds of relationships, where both
people strongly want to do that exploration, where both people are highly
compatible, don't have issues about being trapped, and do have relatively
similar emotional needs. So it is clearly not for everyone in every
situation.
>I must admit, though, my initial reaction is arrogant smugness. I find
>myself feeling superior because I believe I have "more" love to give
>than those "poor monogamists." Please slap me so I wake up. :)
Who has more energy, someone who hikes across a plain, or someone who
explores a cave? Is a specialist better than a generalist or vice versa?
I don't think it is possible to rank these things, and I think it is
wonderful that both kinds of people exist.
The only problem is if you try to do something you can't comfortably do.
>IF it is indeed a case where some people have more than the "minimum"
>to give, what should one do with the rest? Is that where poly comes in?
>The monos that I have asked this to said: "Pour it all into your
>existing relationship". But, somehow, this doesn't work for me. Maybe
>it has to do with the concept that (my) love is multi-dimensional.
My contention is that the closed circuit love and the multi-dimensional
love are qualitatively rather than quantitatively different, and I don't
think one can have both at once.
--
Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
The universe is not only queerer than we imagine,
it's queerer than we can imagine. -- J. B. S. Haldane
Ofer Inbar
>My contention is that the closed circuit love and the multi-dimensional
>love are qualitatively rather than quantitatively different, and I don't
>think one can have both at once.
Hmmm. Can a triad have what you describe as "closed circuit love"?
Or is it strictly a monogamous thing? I'm having a difficult time
understanding what you're describing.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- c...@cs.brandeis.edu
-- WBRS (BRiS) -- WB...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu WB...@brandeis.bitnet
"Good literature is about Love and War."
"Junk fiction is about Sex and Violence."
Lynda Fincham
>There is a scenario where I question the need for rigid monogamy and
>sexual exclusivity. All other things being equal, if two people have
>largely different libidos, etc., why not allow for one's needs to be
>met outside the relationship? (Even better from within it, vis-a-vis a
>triad, of course) It's the tale of the veteran who loses his manhood in
>war. He permits his lady a lover so that she can be fulfilled. I think
>that is a beautiful expression of Love.
What do you do when your partner is not interested in having his needs
met outside the monogamous relationship? I'm involved in a stable (2 1/2
year long) relationship. I'm not sure whether or not you'd classify it
as monogamous or poly. My SO and I do have different libidos, which at
times can make the relationship a little strained. He has a much higher
libido than mine, and likes to be constantly with me. As someone who
has lived most of my life by myself, I find that I cannot take constantly
being around him 24 hours a day, but need some time to myself.
I have on occasion had relationships outside of our relationship.
Unfortunately he's not as open to talking about this as I could wish
(or perhaps I'm not trying as hard as I could), but he doesn't object
when I spend some time away from him with other people, except for
mentioning that he misses me. He does go out with friends (both male
and female), but is not seriously interested in having a relationship
with anyone but me (he has told me this, and his behaviour seems to
support this). I would have no objection to him seeing someone else,
provided that the other person was secondary in our relationship. It
would take some of the burden off of me (I'm quite busy between two
jobs and my other interests).
We both seem to have mostly friends of the opposite sex, ie most of
my friends are male, and most of his friends are female, especially
really close friends. We do have quite a lot of mutual, close friends
though.
I don't want him to do anything he doesn't want to do, but I often
think for him to have someone else to be intimate with and be able to
go out with would make our relationship more stable as well as being
fun for him.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
- --
Gaea (Lynda Fincham) ga...@io.org
Dubito Ergo Sum -- Cognito (416) 363-8676
Bernadette Bosky
Don Wilkinson <lord...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Bernadette Bosky (b...@panix.com) wrote:
>
>[snip of discussion of attention span and needs]
>
>: 1) I've sometimes said, especially when Arthur & I first settled
>: down together, "I'm not jealous; I'm greedy." That is, my relationship
>: with him was qualitatively different from any other, & his mere presence
>: gave me joy. (Still does, actually.) Given that, I wanted to minimize
>: his time away from me, no matter what it was for. (That's why I'd only
>: become serious with a lover who could accept it being a threesome, and
>: ended up in a triad with Kevin & Arthur. The right FMF threesome never
>: has come up, and we're kinda lazy about other partners now anyway.) If I
>: were monogamous & felt this way, of *course* I wouldn't want my partner to
>: be poly--no benefit for me, and I just have to miss my partner! (This is
>: assuming that intimacy needs are equal, or nearly so.)
>
>That is a rather substantial assumption, now isn't it? :)
Oh yes--that's why I added the parenthetical. In fact, different
needs for company and/or emotional intimacy (in time, not depth) is one of
the main reasons our triad works. Arthur needs a *great deal* more
alone-time than I do, and is much less willing to go out and do things.
Kevin actually is maybe a bit more social than I am, but he also is
involved in a number of activities I'm not (mostly spectator sports and
participant playing of games), which he does with other friends. So the
balance is quite equal, in a way it wouldn't be with any given dyad.
I do think that unequal does not mean anyone is not getting needs
met, though--in my experience, there's a desired range rather than one
value; so couples can have different ranges, but A works mostly at the top
(still comfortable, though) and B works mostly at the bottom (not
deprived, though) and it works out. Also, I suspect that people who
expected one person to meet the needs would be more careful for a close
match than I was.
>
>This to me has always been a point of contention in any conversation
>about the merits or detractors of monogamy. "What do you do if you
>are not getting your affection/intimacy/sex needs met?" Most every
>monogamist I have talked to kind of looked bewildered and muttered
>something about "compromise" or "sacrifice for Love" or somesuch, while
>looking forlorn and confused. It always appeared to me that the real
>message was "Well, then I guess you'd just be unfulfilled -- them's
>the rules."
See above-- And now I continue, right where I left off--
Mostly, though, I think you really underestimate the extent to
which monogamous people *do* satisfy social and emotional needs with other
people, as long as sex isn't involved. In some extreme cases, if the
couple is unhappy with even the hint of a possibility of sexual
involvement, this means only same-sex friendships (showing an obvious
blind-spot, but what the heck--): but these are still very deep, intimate
friendships. Most of the monogamous couples I know, though, don't at all
mind friends of the sexually-attractive sex having social/emotional time
with their spouse, as long as it isn't sexual. (I have a fond memory of
seeing *Day of the Dead* with one such friend, when *everyone else* we
knew was grossed out at the prospect!)
So all that's left, often, is the sexual needs--
>
>There is a scenario where I question the need for rigid monogamy and
>sexual exclusivity. All other things being equal, if two people have
>largely different libidos, etc., why not allow for one's needs to be
>met outside the relationship? (Even better from within it, vis-a-vis a
>triad, of course) It's the tale of the veteran who loses his manhood in
>war. He permits his lady a lover so that she can be fulfilled. I think
>that is a beautiful expression of Love.
>
Actually, I have to admit that *my* reaction to that story about
the vetran is, "What! Did the fiends cut out his tongue, cut off his
lips, and sever all of his fingers, too?!"
Now, I think this is not irrelevant to what I was going to say
about sex here-- There are lots of ways to be fulfilled sexually, if your
range of appetite and your spouse's just *will not meet* (which, as I said
before, probably isn't as common as one might think) and you're
monogamous. Even in our triad, sometimes one or the other of us winds up
masturbating--and it's far from an awful fate! Soemtimes I've gone
through periods of not being able to have sex (probably related to
childhood sexual abuse), and I'd just hold my lover while he brought
himself to climax--not as good as sex, but very sweet for both of us, and
certainly satisfying until my mood passed. Also, I think many people are
willing--even eager, yum yum :-)--to pleasure a partner orally or
manually, when not excited enough to want return action.
The bottom line is that if people want to be monogamous, what with
one thing or another, they'll figure out ways to make it work. IT's not
always easy, but then all the talking to make poly-relationships work
isn't easy, either, as we've been discussing here.
>: 2) I do see what you mean about wonderful things that come when
>: romantic energy is focussed. My guess is that it's a matter of minimum
>: amount, rather than all or nothing--but that in some people, the minimum
>: amount of energy they need to focus *is* pretty much all they can give.
>: Is this at all clear?
>
>SAY! That is a very interesting perspective. Hmmmm I think I like it!
>
>I must admit, though, my initial reaction is arrogant smugness. I find
>myself feeling superior because I believe I have "more" love to give
>than those "poor monogamists." Please slap me so I wake up. :)
>
But if I started patting myself on the back for my successful poly
relationships, I'd have to start kicking myself in the butt because other
people have a really great career at my age (I do stuff that I think
accomplishes good, but it isn't a raging career), keep their house & yard
in far better shape than I do, finished their PhD (I'm in a semi-permanent
unfinished-dissertation limbo) & so on. Better not to start, I think.
>IF it is indeed a case where some people have more than the "minimum"
>to give, what should one do with the rest? Is that where poly comes in?
>The monos that I have asked this to said: "Pour it all into your
>existing relationship". But, somehow, this doesn't work for me. Maybe
>it has to do with the concept that (my) love is multi-dimensional. I
>can see where some of my Love expression would have little or no value
>for a particular person, whereas it would for another.
>
>One aspect of most of my relationships in the past has been that I have
>had to repress one or more areas of my identity and existence. This and/or
>that about me was something that my partner could not share with me, and
>possibly "forbade" me to engage in. Now, while I have lately come to the
>idea that I am not willing to sacrifice certain things, I doubt the sanity
>of anyone who says I can hope to find a partner who will love me as I am,
>altogether. I am too hopeless to buy into that.
>(What does this have to do with any thing? Sorry.. needed to vent, I guess)
>I think what I mean to say is that with being poly, I see a better chance
>to express the diversity of myself via multiple "forums". For me,
>the concept of being nearly completely compatible with only one person seems
>an unattainable goal.
>
Well, I had *just* decided that I would never find one person to
share enough of my life with, but that was OK since I had a number of
lovers who shared different aspects of me, and two weeks later I met
Arthur! (This is true.) On the other hand, I never expected him to
actually participate in all of my interests--but he did (& does) share a
number of interests by participation, and there is no area of my life he
doesn't want to at least hear about & share that way. And he's always
been *exceptionally wonderful* about being actively happy that I can
participate with others in the interests he doesn't share.
My guess, from your writing, is that (a) you probably could in
time find someone who shares enough of your life to be a single central
mate, though it probably would take time & be difficult, and (b) you'd
probably still want other lovers, because being poly seems important to
you in and of itself.
Your posts speak of me so wonderfully-- After your response to
the "bi- spirituality" stuff, I had to do headwork for three days, in
order not to feel either (1) grandiose or (2) as though I didn't deserve
it and had tricked you into it! Three days well-spent, though--don't
stop! And I'll continue to try to post from by best-self insights &c. (I
do think I put a lot into this group, and I get *incredible lots* out.)
Bernadette Bosky
Bernadette Bosky
Joe Avins <jqa...@astro.ocis.temple.edu> wrote:
>Bernadette Bosky (b...@panix.com) wrote:
>[Big Snip]
>
>: I *wish* that sayings like "the more I love, the more I can love"
>: were factually 100% true--& maybe it's good to say them anyway, so that we
>: can approach that goal more and more closely. But in my experience, the
>: limitless emotion is limited in its *expression,* by time and energy.
>
>But isn't the emotion itself still lim- well, very nearly limitless?
>The expression is, of course, very important. But isn't Bear's
>quote, as far as it goes, about 99&44/100% true anyhow?
>
interesting difference here.
First, I have a hard time--much harder than I would have thought,
actually--thinking of the existance of an emotion apart from its
expression. I can think of someone fondly, but unless I tell the person
about my thoughts, this doesn't seem to me to result in the kind of
sharing that I think of as basic to love.
The only emotion that I personally can apply Bear's statement to
is a very strong caritas--a kind of concern, regard, and well-wishing that
I strive to live as much as possible, but which is *not* the kind of
personal, rooted love that I think of as the love in "polyamory."
Other than that, it really seems that I, personally, have reached
a plateau of love--that there are so many people I love (in many different
ways, whether we have sex or not--not only Arthur & Kevin but
friend-lovers, friends, family, honorary family, mentors, students--) that
I really *can't* love anyone more, and still do justice to everyone,
unless I gain a double-long day or make some kind of evolutionary leap of
the emotions! (I never thought of it exactly this way, but it just popped
out now, and it's completely true.) Oh, maybe a bit of fudging here
& there, his new person I simply *must* not only get to know but care
about--but it seems to me that I'm loving a *whole* lot, and instead of
expanding infinitely, the personal-love dance-card is getting full!
I do think that loving more does seem to always increase the
*depth* of love; and that caritas, for me, does continue to grow, always,
without being limited by time & energy in the way that personal love seems
to be (for me). Depth of personal love on the one hand, and caritas on
the other, seem to have at least as much to do with where my head is than
with time & energy or interactions with the other person.
>: I guess just that both poly and monogamy seem like valid choices,
>: in a world where we have to make so many choices because time and energy
>
>Ahah! You said poly is a choice!
>
>Okay, I'll stop harping on this now.
>
I couldn't see the point of making it a huge debate--instead of
agreeing to disagree--but actually, I said that I do think of poly as a
choice. But then, I think of most things as choices, except for what is
clearly physically determined (& maybe even then!).
Bernadette Bosky
Nancy Lebovitz
(....)
> Other than that, it really seems that I, personally, have reached
>a plateau of love--that there are so many people I love (in many different
>ways, whether we have sex or not--not only Arthur & Kevin but
>friend-lovers, friends, family, honorary family, mentors, students--) that
>I really *can't* love anyone more, and still do justice to everyone,
>unless I gain a double-long day or make some kind of evolutionary leap of
>the emotions! (I never thought of it exactly this way, but it just popped
>out now, and it's completely true.) Oh, maybe a bit of fudging here
>& there, his new person I simply *must* not only get to know but care
>about--but it seems to me that I'm loving a *whole* lot, and instead of
>expanding infinitely, the personal-love dance-card is getting full!
Maybe this is what you mean by an evolutionary leap of the emotions,
but it occurs to me that it might be possible for emotional expression
to become more intense and "efficient" so that emotions register more
fully in less time with fewer side effects to be cleaned up afterwards.
I'm not sure that this is desirable (I'm working from theory--it
sounds good but might be a recipe for burnout or something) and even
if it is, you might prefer to intensify existing relationships rather
than adding more.
I've mentioned intensity a couple of times, which might imply that
I'm just referring to the more dramatic emotions....actually this
could also apply to more subtle stuff like contentment....
Efficient contentment that goes right to the core--what a concept!
Nancy
--
Nancy Lebovitz calligraphic button catalogue available by email (170K)
na...@genie.slhs.udel.edu
William C. Gawne
>Maybe this is what you mean by an evolutionary leap of the emotions,
>but it occurs to me that it might be possible for emotional expression
>to become more intense and "efficient" so that emotions register more
>fully in less time with fewer side effects to be cleaned up afterwards.
>
>I'm not sure that this is desirable (I'm working from theory--it
>sounds good but might be a recipe for burnout or something) and even
>if it is, you might prefer to intensify existing relationships rather
>than adding more.
>
>I've mentioned intensity a couple of times, which might imply that
>I'm just referring to the more dramatic emotions....actually this
>could also apply to more subtle stuff like contentment....
>Efficient contentment that goes right to the core--what a concept!
Hmmm... It's my observation that most cases of very intense emotion
wear out fast. Perhaps its related to the dispersion being dependent
on the power distribution (forgive me if that's too obscure, I tend
to think like a physicist for some silly reason).
When I want to build something that is going to last, my approach
is to take my time, go slow, and do it right. At the interpersonal
relationship level this keeps from scaring people away and allows
sustainable growth. Of course, I'm into long term relationships;
with a hope of developing lifelong friendships.
Oh well, enough of that for now. I need to work on something that'll
pay the bills.
-Bill
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Don Wilkinson
: In article <lordbearC...@netcom.com>,
: Don Wilkinson <lord...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Bernadette Bosky (b...@panix.com) wrote:
: >
: >[snip of discussion of attention span and needs]
: >
: I do think that unequal does not mean anyone is not getting needs
: met, though--in my experience, there's a desired range rather than one
: value; so couples can have different ranges, but A works mostly at the top
: (still comfortable, though) and B works mostly at the bottom (not
: deprived, though) and it works out. Also, I suspect that people who
: expected one person to meet the needs would be more careful for a close
: match than I was.
... close match... indeed. This is part of why I used to think that any
mono relationship was bunk. In my then-limited thinking (the expansion of
which you continue to contribute to) I felt that it was nigh on impossible
to find two persons whom could be (for all intents and purposes) completely
compatible. My definition of compatibility was such that these two people
would have to be able to completely fulfill each other among only each other.
Rather unreasonable criteria -- no wonder I thought it couldn't work!
Now, I see that compatibility has as much to do with how and what you share
with each other as it does with how you handle those areas where you do
not share. I have seen most relationships be so restrictive and clingy
that it was a serious problem for a person to go "outside the relationship"
for most any reason -- sexual or non-sexual. Certainly there are examples
of this; the women who resents her husband's "night out with the boys".
I can now see where a mono relationship can work, as long as both partners
can accept and compromise on each other's needs, from within and without
the relationship. Certainly, jealousy, possessiveness and suspicion are
poison. I guess I have seen too many bad examples, not enough good ones.
So, my estimate of the success probability for monogamy was low. (Funny
too, like poly is any easier! HA!)
: >
: >This to me has always been a point of contention in any conversation
: >about the merits or detractors of monogamy. "What do you do if you
: >are not getting your affection/intimacy/sex needs met?" Most every
: >monogamist I have talked to kind of looked bewildered and muttered
: >something about "compromise" or "sacrifice for Love" or somesuch, while
: >looking forlorn and confused. It always appeared to me that the real
: >message was "Well, then I guess you'd just be unfulfilled -- them's
: >the rules."
: See above-- And now I continue, right where I left off--
: Mostly, though, I think you really underestimate the extent to
: which monogamous people *do* satisfy social and emotional needs with other
: people, as long as sex isn't involved. In some extreme cases, if the
: couple is unhappy with even the hint of a possibility of sexual
: involvement, this means only same-sex friendships (showing an obvious
: blind-spot, but what the heck--): but these are still very deep, intimate
: friendships. Most of the monogamous couples I know, though, don't at all
: mind friends of the sexually-attractive sex having social/emotional time
: with their spouse, as long as it isn't sexual. (I have a fond memory of
: seeing *Day of the Dead* with one such friend, when *everyone else* we
: knew was grossed out at the prospect!)
: So all that's left, often, is the sexual needs--
Which was what I was concentrating on... As I said above "affection/
intimacy/sex needs". Well, certainly, in many, if not most, mono rela-
tionships, some expression of "affection" is allowed. But, the sort
of "affection" *I* show would not be 'allowable' for many mono folk.
I have always wondered why people in general, draw the
line at the "bedroom door". So many will permit many kinds and degrees
of friendship, but not as lovers. Funny too, because in some cases, the
non-sexual intimacy two friends share could be more "dangerous" to the
marital/mono relationship than simple sex would be. But, we can ignore
that. Why?
: >
: >There is a scenario where I question the need for rigid monogamy and
: >sexual exclusivity. All other things being equal, if two people have
: >largely different libidos, etc., why not allow for one's needs to be
: >met outside the relationship? (Even better from within it, vis-a-vis a
: >triad, of course) It's the tale of the veteran who loses his manhood in
: >war. He permits his lady a lover so that she can be fulfilled. I think
: >that is a beautiful expression of Love.
: >
: Actually, I have to admit that *my* reaction to that story about
: the vetran is, "What! Did the fiends cut out his tongue, cut off his
: lips, and sever all of his fingers, too?!"
hahahha well, in the era that this tale comes from, oral sex and for
that matter digital sex, were not really considered "normal". :)
However, that aside, while I LOVE oral sex and really enjoy intercourse
(vaginal and anal -- and oral for that matter <evil grin>), I don't
know how happy or fulfilled I would be in the long run without the
good ole boinky-boinky from time to time.
Also, from his persepctive; wouldn't it be frustrating, nay - even
torturous! - to not be able to be pleasured (much - let's face it,
for the average straight male, the penis is mostly where it's at.)
in return. I don't know about others, but, for me, going down on or
masturbating my lover gets me hot. and I want to have fun too. :)
: Now, I think this is not irrelevant to what I was going to say
: about sex here-- There are lots of ways to be fulfilled sexually, if your
: range of appetite and your spouse's just *will not meet* (which, as I said
: before, probably isn't as common as one might think) and you're
: monogamous. Even in our triad, sometimes one or the other of us winds up
: masturbating--and it's far from an awful fate! Soemtimes I've gone
: through periods of not being able to have sex (probably related to
: childhood sexual abuse), and I'd just hold my lover while he brought
: himself to climax--not as good as sex, but very sweet for both of us, and
: certainly satisfying until my mood passed.
I like doing this too -- very intimate and very sweet -- can be HOT!
: Also, I think many people are
: willing--even eager, yum yum :-)--to pleasure a partner orally or
: manually, when not excited enough to want return action.
I have re-typed a response to this remark several times. Each time, it
came
out sounding whiney and full of self-pity. Even as I type this, planning
the next sentence, I am fighting off this urge to complain. Suffice to
say that I am not so convinced that there are many eager lovers out there.
Oh, I've had people who were willing, sure. Willing to lie there and
let me "use" them to "get off". That is NOT the same as a person who
genuinely is assertive and passionate enough to take initiative and just
do the things that they know I enjoy.
Heck, it's not their fault; that' what women are taught they are supposed
to do -- lie there and "give" themselves for their man's pleasure. I mean,
that is all men want, is to screw, right? FIE!
I guess it is my fault. Sometimes I want it to be hir idea. I want someone
who actually likes the idea of using their hands and mouths to bring
my great pleasure. And you'd think they get the hint - I mean I spend
a lot of time and energy on them, doing all the yummy stuff.
I am sorry. I am doing it. I'll stop now.
: My guess, from your writing, is that (a) you probably could in
: time find someone who shares enough of your life to be a single central
: mate, though it probably would take time & be difficult, and (b) you'd
: probably still want other lovers, because being poly seems important to
: you in and of itself.
Well, deep down inside, I have only one desire -- to be happy and
fulfilled. I will take that where I can get it. I have simply had this
preconceived idea that _I_ would not find that within a singular relation-
ship. In truth -- Who Knows!?? I may someday be a merry monogamist!
: Your posts speak of me so wonderfully-- After your response to
: the "bi- spirituality" stuff, I had to do headwork for three days, in
: order not to feel either (1) grandiose or (2) as though I didn't deserve
: it and had tricked you into it! Three days well-spent, though--don't
: stop! And I'll continue to try to post from by best-self insights &c. (I
: do think I put a lot into this group, and I get *incredible lots* out.)
: Bernadette Bosky
Thank you again, Bernadette for thought provoking and heartening dialogue.
sonny hays-eberts
Wilkinson) wrote:
[sir snipalot]
> So, my estimate of the success probability for monogamy was low. (Funny
> too, like poly is any easier! HA!)
not what i really meant to comment on, but i wonder what the success rates
are for both. of course that opens the entire can of worms as to what
success is. my gut feeling is that relationships in general are tough. i
honestly don't know which flavor is harder, if any in fact really is.
> I have always wondered why people in general, draw the
> line at the "bedroom door". So many will permit many kinds and degrees
> of friendship, but not as lovers. Funny too, because in some cases, the
> non-sexual intimacy two friends share could be more "dangerous" to the
> marital/mono relationship than simple sex would be. But, we can ignore
> that. Why?
*big bingo* this is so applicable to my life, it scares me. i have friends
who can handle the non-sexual intimacy, which is quite intense (and to me,
like you, more "dangerous" than simple sex), yet they freeze when sex gets
involved. it seems alien to me, and i really don't understand, just like
you.
[snipsters]
> In truth -- Who Knows!?? I may someday be a merry monogamist!
or is that marry monogomist?
:)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear
to man as it is: infinite."
-- William Blake
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
Carol Seger
Nancy Lebovitz writes:
>Maybe this is what you mean by an evolutionary leap of the emotions,
>but it occurs to me that it might be possible for emotional expression
>to become more intense and "efficient" so that emotions register more
>fully in less time with fewer side effects to be cleaned up afterwards.
Yes, I think that it might indeed be possible to learn to evoke
emotions more "efficiently" -- more easily, with more intensity, and
in such a way that they come to smoother conclusions. I find that
I am much better at feeling my emotions now than I was a decade ago.
To take love as an example, I feel it towards people more readily, with
greater intensity, and I'm a little better at not letting it
get obsessive. I find that the meditation practice I've done and
ritual work I've been involved in have helped me gain emotional
insight and control.
>I've mentioned intensity a couple of times, which might imply that
>I'm just referring to the more dramatic emotions....actually this
>could also apply to more subtle stuff like contentment....
>Efficient contentment that goes right to the core--what a concept!
I think I've also learned to feel subtle emotions like contentment
more efficiently, though I still have a long way to go for
all emotions.
Carol.
se...@cognet.ucla.edu
Jessica Hart
>
Her longterm relationship partner has a much higher libido than she
does, and yet:
> [He] is not seriously interested in having a relationship
>with anyone but me (he has told me this,
Lynda wishes he would get another partner, to take some of the pressure off her!
Yet he does not want to consider this. What might be going on in his head?
1. He is afraid that, even though Lynda SAYS it's OK with her, she might actually
get more jealous than she thinks she would --
and he might lose her. (And this COULD happen, he is not wrong to
worry about this. This is why my first poly lover lost me -- his wife welcomed me,
then got unexpectedly jealous.)
2. He is afraid that he might love the new woman more, and want to leave
Lynda. This would probably make him feel guilty, and no one wants to feel that way.
3. He is afraid that Lynda's giving him permission to have another partner
means Lynda doesn't love him as much as he loves HER.
He is probably also ANGRY that Lynda would suggest such a thing. He really wishes
Lynda would say "We're so happy together, just the two of us! You're so perfect
for me!"
My suggestion (since Lynda asked for one) is to find out from the boyfriend
just what's going on in his head on this issue, and what he is feeling. You hope
that after 2 1/2 years, communication between the two of you is at the level where
he will honestly examine himself and tell you what he finds.
Another thing is that, if Lynda is allowing him to be around her more than she
wants him to, he probably doesn't feel the NEED for another woman. After all,
he's with Lynda 24 hours a day. Maybe he needs a little push out of the nest in
the form of a few "No, I can't see you today"s from Lynda.
For what it's worth.
Jessica Hart
jes...@wrs.com
>
Carol Suelzle
>of this; the women who resents her husband's "night out with the boys".
I resented it not because of the time spent away - but because of the
attitude - that of "having to get away from the old lady" (I can only *stand*
her for so long, I have to get away!). It did not seem so much a 'night out
with the boys' as a 'night out to get angry about women'.
The evenings were usually spent at a topless (plus) bar, and the 'boys' would
come home drunk and unable to even determine *how* they got home.
Instead of being a postive thing, it seemed to increase any male-female
differences. It widened the gap and created even more biased attitudes.
Suddenly aguments would be based on "You women blah blah blah always blah blah
blah." They were *not* based on actual occurances between us, but some
perceived 'wrong' that *all* women foisted on men.
I avoid doing the same sort of thing with groups of women, because they will,
as a group, put down *all* men. Sometimes, I think we're basically herd
animals, and if we put a group of us together based on a single
characteristic, (male, female, feminist, biker, pro-choice, cattle) we tend to
do things to others and assume things about others as a 'group' that we would
never do one on one.
Uh, I'll just stop and be quiet now. . .
Carol
sonny hays-eberts
Suelzle) wrote:
[e-scissors were here]
> Instead of being a postive thing, it seemed to increase any male-female
> differences. It widened the gap and created even more biased attitudes.
> Suddenly aguments would be based on "You women blah blah blah always blah blah
> blah." They were *not* based on actual occurances between us, but some
> perceived 'wrong' that *all* women foisted on men.
yeah, nasty girls. they just want to hurt us. :)
i find this type of transferrance on usenet as well. because one man or
woman is currently in a situation of some type that is current and weighing
heavy on thier mind, it suddenly gets generalized to all women or all men,
which inevitably triggers a member of the opposite sex to respond.....
> I avoid doing the same sort of thing with groups of women, because they will,
> as a group, put down *all* men. Sometimes, I think we're basically herd
> animals, and if we put a group of us together based on a single
> characteristic, (male, female, feminist, biker, pro-choice, cattle) we tend to
> do things to others and assume things about others as a 'group' that we would
> never do one on one.
>
> Uh, I'll just stop and be quiet now. . .
no, at least for *me*, you've hit the nail rather squarely on the head.
this chimes quite well with my experiences and the rather amazing thing, as
you point out, is that it is not unique to male or female. it must be a
people-thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
-- Samuel Johnson
"Dr. Johnson has defined 'patriotism' as the last refuge of a
scoundrel. With due respect to a fellow lexicographer, I submit
it is the first."
-- Ambrose Bierce
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
Don Wilkinson
: Carol
<Nod>
Yeah, this is partly why I don't have many male friends. I have never been
able to cotton to the mysogynist bellowing and testoterone chest thumping.
I see two rather different approaches.
1) Boy's night out = chance to comiserate, reinforce stereotypes, do
male bonding, etc. Get drunk, act rude and beligerant, and generally live
up to the negative male stereotypes.
2) Personal time = engaging in activities that fulfill one's self that
don't happen to be enjoyed by your partner.
I hope the distinction is clear. :) I expect it is. Of course, while
you could not reasonably expect to stop someone (your partner) from
engaging in the former, you could hope... Of course, if I was involved
with someone like (how would that even happen in the first place is a
serious question, for me) this, I would doubt my decision to have them in
my life any further. :^}
BTW, do you have a particular objection to topless <etc.> bars? I mean,
I have never been to one, and from what I understand, they are bastions of
the kind of sleazy maleness that I dislike. No wonder a former g/f
shrieked in horror when I ildy commented on my interest in going to
such a place, as a curiousity. I wish it were just a case of; She thought
"it" might rub off on me. Rather, she did not seem to be able to under-
stand the simple curiousity I have. "Why, why, why???!!!??" I guess she
didn't trust that I could be a "good guy" and still want to check it out.
Alan Hamilton
Sexual Needs )" thread.
A point arising from the phrasing used in that article: I have started
using "a member of another gender" instead of "a member of the
opposite sex" because:
o "Gender" seems more accurate than "sex" since in most of these
situations we will be going on what we see and will not have checked
the primary sex characteristics between someone's legs.
o "Opposite" suggests that there is more different between women and
men (and any other gender) than there is in common. My perception is
that we have most things in common but a few things (both physical and
cultural) that are very different but not "opposites."
o "Another" allows for the fact that some people perceive more than
two sexes (male, female, neuter, intersexed) or genders (men, women,
MTF transexual, FTM transexual, etc.)
What do other folks think about this?
-Alan
bearpaw
>A point arising from the phrasing used in that article: I have started
>using "a member of another gender" instead of "a member of the
>opposite sex" because:
> o "Gender" seems more accurate than "sex" since in most of these
> situations we will be going on what we see and will not have checked
> the primary sex characteristics between someone's legs.
> o "Opposite" suggests that there is more different between women and
> men (and any other gender) than there is in common. My perception is
> that we have most things in common but a few things (both physical and
> cultural) that are very different but not "opposites."
> o "Another" allows for the fact that some people perceive more than
> two sexes (male, female, neuter, intersexed) or genders (men, women,
> MTF transexual, FTM transexual, etc.)
>What do other folks think about this?
I kinda like it. I use "another gender" myself (when I remember!).
I probably wouldn't challange other people's use of the original,
though. (Shrug) I'll just explain the new usage if they look at me
funny when *I* use it.
bearpaw
==bea...@world.std.com=============Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas==
| "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
| I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
| I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
| and whatever benefits humanity as a whole." - Malcolm X
======================================================================
sonny hays-eberts
[what? it's gone!]
> Yeah, this is partly why I don't have many male friends. I have never been
> able to cotton to the mysogynist bellowing and testoterone chest thumping.
well, *personally*, i don't mind the chest thumping. i can certainly pass
on the mysogyny however.
> I see two rather different approaches.
> 1) Boy's night out = chance to comiserate, reinforce stereotypes, do
> male bonding, etc. Get drunk, act rude and beligerant, and generally live
> up to the negative male stereotypes.
hey. jake and i do this. go out, drink scotch, get looped, have fun. i
don't know that we get rude and belligerant, but it's not all bad either.
and it is male bonding. shoot, my brother and i have been known to hit the
bars in new mexico and get involved in fisticuffs just for general fun
(although not in the past few years). i don't think that makes me some
yucky male. at most a barrel of contradictions, but not much more.
> 2) Personal time = engaging in activities that fulfill one's self that
> don't happen to be enjoyed by your partner.
this needn't be boys night out though. i can do this one by myself at the
ice rink. and those yucky girl-types are there too. :)
> I hope the distinction is clear. :) I expect it is. Of course, while
> you could not reasonably expect to stop someone (your partner) from
> engaging in the former, you could hope... Of course, if I was involved
> with someone like (how would that even happen in the first place is a
> serious question, for me) this, I would doubt my decision to have them in
> my life any further. :^}
bye. :)
> BTW, do you have a particular objection to topless <etc.> bars? I mean,
> I have never been to one, and from what I understand, they are bastions of
> the kind of sleazy maleness that I dislike. No wonder a former g/f
> shrieked in horror when I ildy commented on my interest in going to
> such a place, as a curiousity. I wish it were just a case of; She thought
> "it" might rub off on me. Rather, she did not seem to be able to under-
> stand the simple curiousity I have. "Why, why, why???!!!??" I guess she
> didn't trust that I could be a "good guy" and still want to check it out.
boy do we disagree. so much so that both of my female partners have not
only been to these kinds of places, but not been squicked by them either.
of course, my main problem with them is that they are pretty damn
expensive. and anymore if i want a free tabledance, i can just ask :). but
in germany it wasn't at all uncommon to see couples go to these together.
how do you feel about the chippendale dancers (other than excited?) :)
and it reminds me of an experience some woman had (i forget her name),
where she was protesting in front of one of these places in la. a dancer
came out and said, 'look, i appreciate your actions, but i make over $500 a
night. if you really want to help women, get your ass down the street where
older women are paid $.50/hr to sew. they need it more than i.' just not
the glamour in fighting for those kind of women i guess. i have a good
friend who has done this work in the past. she didn't do it to support some
drug habit, she had a mba, she wasn't lazy. she was very proud of her body
and made more in a week than i did in a month. and it was all her choice.
Ben Cole
This rings a strong chord with me. As a full-time husband, full-time
employee, full-time Ph.D. student, I find that I am getting behind
on these devoting all my time to the things on my plate. Which means
that forming/keeping additional relationships is pretty much impossible
for me. (MASSIVE SULK.)
It's really nice knowing that other people have that same problem. I
guess the only suggestion I can offer is the realization that while
love never divides but multiplies, time is more harsh. (This, in fact,
is one thing I got from Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love."--It's
even there in the title.) One question that we all must address as
individuals is: Of the finite time that we are all given, how much
of it are we going to spend on our relationships, and how much are
we going to spend on domestic chores, and how much on a career,
and how much on community service...etc. etc. etc.
(Me? Career and Spouse are tied for first, and neither is happy about it.)
Ben
Howard Landman
>>the women who resents her husband's "night out with the boys".
In article <carols.29...@uma.ohsu.edu> car...@uma.ohsu.edu (Carol Suelzle) writes:
>I resented it not because of the time spent away - but because of the
>attitude - that of "having to get away from the old lady" (I can only *stand*
>her for so long, I have to get away!). It did not seem so much a 'night out
>with the boys' as a 'night out to get angry about women'.
>Instead of being a postive thing, it seemed to increase any male-female
>differences. It widened the gap and created even more biased attitudes.
>I avoid doing the same sort of thing with groups of women, because they will,
>as a group, put down *all* men.
Heh. Gelly's mother's group has a monthly meeting called a "Stitch & Bitch",
which seems to fit that description pretty well. And they have occasional
"Girls Nights Out" where they go to a comedy club or dancing, sans hubby.
So why doesn't any of this bother me? Sometimes I'll even babysit ...
Howard A. Landman
lan...@hal.com
"To raise chickens, you have to put up with a rooster.
To raise children, you have to put up with a husband."
- campesina saying
Ofer Inbar
>In article <lordbearC...@netcom.com>, lord...@netcom.com (Don
>Wilkinson) wrote:
>> So, my estimate of the success probability for monogamy was low. (Funny
>> too, like poly is any easier! HA!)
>
>not what i really meant to comment on, but i wonder what the success rates
>are for both. of course that opens the entire can of worms as to what
>success is. my gut feeling is that relationships in general are tough. i
>honestly don't know which flavor is harder, if any in fact really is.
I don't think this is quite the right way to look at the question.
Relationships have a higher chance of success the better the people
involved are at it, and the more options are open to them to explore.
In the context of the monogamy ideal, certain plausible options are
cut off from consideration, and I think that rather obviously drives
down the chance of "success". Without the monogamy ideal, if the
people in the relationship are open to considering polyamory as an
option, whether they actually end up choosing that option or not isn't
the issue. In general, there will be more success. Do you agree?
(And I understand that some people will rule out certain options for
*themselves*, for personal reasons. But in this case polyamory is no
different from any other variable.)
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- c...@cs.brandeis.edu
-- WBRS (BRiS) -- WB...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu WB...@brandeis.bitnet
Love: a blurring of the distinction between selfish and selfless.
Teresa
> In article <28a3ij$l...@ionews.io.org> ga...@io.org (Lynda Fincham) writes:
> >
>
> Her longterm relationship partner has a much higher libido than she
> does, and yet:
>
> > [He] is not seriously interested in having a relationship
> >with anyone but me (he has told me this,
>
>
> Lynda wishes he would get another partner, to take some of the pressure off h
> Yet he does not want to consider this. What might be going on in his head?
>
> 1. He is afraid that, even though Lynda SAYS it's OK with her, she might actu
> get more jealous than she thinks she would --
> and he might lose her. (And this COULD happen, he is not wrong to
> worry about this. This is why my first poly lover lost me -- his wife welcome
> then got unexpectedly jealous.)
>
> 2. He is afraid that he might love the new woman more, and want to leave
> Lynda. This would probably make him feel guilty, and no one wants to feel tha
>
> 3. He is afraid that Lynda's giving him permission to have another partner
> means Lynda doesn't love him as much as he loves HER.
> He is probably also ANGRY that Lynda would suggest such a thing. He really wi
> Lynda would say "We're so happy together, just the two of us! You're so perfe
> for me!"
>
> My suggestion (since Lynda asked for one) is to find out from the boyfriend
> just what's going on in his head on this issue, and what he is feeling. You h
> that after 2 1/2 years, communication between the two of you is at the level
> he will honestly examine himself and tell you what he finds.
>
> Another thing is that, if Lynda is allowing him to be around her more than sh
> wants him to, he probably doesn't feel the NEED for another woman. After all,
> he's with Lynda 24 hours a day. Maybe he needs a little push out of the nest
> the form of a few "No, I can't see you today"s from Lynda.
>
Couldn't it just be that perhaps he doesn't want to have sex with anyone
else? Why is that so hard to accept?
I definately think that the man needs to stop expecting Lynda to
entertain him 24 hours a day... he really should cultivate some
interests that would allow her some time away from him, and allow him to
do something he likes. But she should also realize that he may not ever
want anyone else.
Has she talked to him and told him that she is having a hard time dealing
with his demands?
Teresa
[*> Management may or may not agree with the above message.
[*> WndrSvr in Southern California; Call +1-310-370-3069
sonny hays-eberts
wrote:
>
> In article <28854d$5...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> gr...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Jennifer Lynn Dailey) writes:
> >In article <27u861$f...@panix.com>, Bernadette Bosky <b...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Not
> >>only do relationships compete with each other in this way, but
> >>relationships and other things all compete--jobs, hobbies, reading,
> >>housework, and so on. (For instance, I haven't worked a regular 40-hour
> >>job since before our triad, and I sometimes wonder if I could have the
> >>household I do if I did have to put that much time and energy into work.
> >>Maybe, but I kinda think not.) I used to be annoyed at these limitations;
> >>now I sorta live with them, and make the best priorities I can.
> >
> >Boy, do I understand that. I'm a full-time wife, a full-time Ph.D.
> >student, and a part-time German teacher. I think I'm going to go crazy
> >with the pressure sometimes. And what ends up getting removed from my
> >life, almost completely? Usenet ... I miss you guys. <sniff>
>
> employee, full-time Ph.D. student, I find that I am getting behind
> on these devoting all my time to the things on my plate. Which means
> that forming/keeping additional relationships is pretty much impossible
> for me. (MASSIVE SULK.)
gee. i just work 40 hours here, another 20-30 on my contract programming
(which thank god is done for a while and our game is actually being
released!), maintain an 80x60 organic garden, run/lift weights/play hockey,
and try and squeeze judy, elaine and jake in before all my other friends.
if *i* can do it, then you all can....
:):):):):):):)
(ok, it's a cheap reference to the who makes the first move thread....,
it's a joke son, a joke. )
no, actually i've always gone through life feeling like amphetamines were a
naturally occuring hormone for me, i guess.
[snip]
Bernadette Bosky
Ofer Inbar <c...@cs.brandeis.edu> wrote:
>ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu (sonny hays-eberts) writes:
>>
>>not what i really meant to comment on, but i wonder what the success rates
>>are for both. of course that opens the entire can of worms as to what
>>success is. my gut feeling is that relationships in general are tough. i
>>honestly don't know which flavor is harder, if any in fact really is.
>
>I don't think this is quite the right way to look at the question.
>Relationships have a higher chance of success the better the people
>involved are at it, and the more options are open to them to explore.
>In the context of the monogamy ideal, certain plausible options are
>cut off from consideration, and I think that rather obviously drives
>down the chance of "success". Without the monogamy ideal, if the
>people in the relationship are open to considering polyamory as an
>option, whether they actually end up choosing that option or not isn't
>the issue. In general, there will be more success. Do you agree?
>
it doesn't seem to necessarily work that way in paractice, though I'm not
sure why. I would think a lot of it would have to do with the stresses in
a marriage that have nothing to do with sexual fidelity (the "kids, pets,
& money" of another thread), but which can take somewhat different forms
in mono- or poly- relationships. Also, your reasoning is valid if all
other things are equal--but I think that's rarely true, if only because
people with different strengths & different weaknesses are more likely to
be drawn to one approach or the other. In my experience, when a couple
can choose in a productive, calm way whether they want to be poly- or
mono-, that's more a *sign* of how healthy the relationship is than a
*cause.* This leads to the question of what does *cause* healthy
relationships--I'm not sure how to clarify what I think on that point, but
to me it has more to do with inner centering than it does with the number
of available options. (This is a very vague post, I know, but it is an
area I hadn't thought of before & enjoy noodling around with.)
> Love: a blurring of the distinction between selfish and selfless.
I love your sig-file! Actually, it occurs to me just now that it
pinpoints one concrete characteristic that seems to make for successful
committed relationships, of any flavor.
Bernadette Bosky
Bernadette Bosky
Nancy Lebovitz <na...@genie.slhs.udel.edu> wrote:
>In article <28e2a8$s...@panix.com> b...@panix.com (Bernadette Bosky) writes:
>> Other than that, it really seems that I, personally, have reached
>>a plateau of love--that there are so many people I love (in many different
>>ways, whether we have sex or not--not only Arthur & Kevin but
>>friend-lovers, friends, family, honorary family, mentors, students--) that
>>I really *can't* love anyone more, and still do justice to everyone,
>>unless I gain a double-long day or make some kind of evolutionary leap of
>>the emotions!
>
>but it occurs to me that it might be possible for emotional expression
>to become more intense and "efficient" so that emotions register more
>fully in less time with fewer side effects to be cleaned up afterwards.
>
>I'm not sure that this is desirable (I'm working from theory--it
>sounds good but might be a recipe for burnout or something) and even
>if it is, you might prefer to intensify existing relationships rather
>than adding more.
>
>I've mentioned intensity a couple of times, which might imply that
>I'm just referring to the more dramatic emotions....actually this
>could also apply to more subtle stuff like contentment....
>Efficient contentment that goes right to the core--what a concept!
>
clarifications of my original statement.
Mostly, it's been my impression that "The more you love, the more
you can love," in poly-circles, has often been applied to loving *more
people*; and this is what I was replying to. But what your post made me
think of, which I think is valid in a way the other use is not, is when it
is applied to loving *the same people more.* That is, while I feel I've
reached some sort of limit in how widely I can apply my love, I do *not*
feel I've reached any kind of limit in how deep my love can go for those I
do love. (And that this should be so does seem to me like some kind of a
miracle, actually.) By depth of love, I don't just mean interior
feelings, but things like understanding why they do things & replying in a
useful way, based on that understanding, rather than assuming hostile
motives & retaliating in kind--acting in a more and more loving way
(without losing myself in any co-dependent sense--not repressing anger,
but genuinely not feeling it due to insight & acceptance).
Hmm! Actually, this does help explain why I seem to have reached
a tentative limit in number of relationships, but not depth of love within
them: it's a matter of substituting behavior that is more loving for
behavior that is less loving, within the same degree of interaction, rather
than adding new interactions (& hence needing more time &/or energy).
And to me, *personal love* has to include not only a certain
amount of personal interaction, but a mutual desire for continued personal
interaction in the future--including both information-exchange and contact
that matters. I do think that caritas can include touching each other in
deeply personal ways, in a situation-bound way; but that isn't the same
thing as personal love, I don't think--& in fact I think that taking that
for personal love can cause some real problems. If nothing else, personal
love seems to me to include at least a desire (if not a promise) to be
available if that person needs the same kind of contact in the future;
whereas caritas doesn't, though it does include the willingness to do the
same for any other person in the same situation.
I hope this hasn't gotten too esoteric--Nancy and I are old
friends (well, not *that* old--just friends for some years!), so I may
have taken some ideas for granted, & left them unexplained, in a way I
usually would not have.
Bernadette Bosky
sonny hays-eberts
> Ofer Inbar <c...@cs.brandeis.edu> wrote:
> >I don't think this is quite the right way to look at the question.
> >Relationships have a higher chance of success the better the people
> >involved are at it, and the more options are open to them to explore.
well, i can easily buy the better the people involved bit, but that seems
too easy; like saying that faster race car drivers win more races. what
makes people better at it? personally, i think that a certain amount of
independence (i.e. self-reliance), willingness to communicate, thick skin,
openess to new ideas and ability to make sudden mid-course corrections are
all traits that help. i'm sure there are a lot more than what i've named.
as for more options, i don't know that i buy that. elaine has mentioned
more than once that habits are nice, they prevent one from constantly
having to make choices. a certain amount of latitude and flexibility and
options are nice, but too much can be, well, simply too much.
all imho, of course.
> >In the context of the monogamy ideal, certain plausible options are
> >cut off from consideration, and I think that rather obviously drives
> >down the chance of "success". Without the monogamy ideal, if the
i think it really depends on what you mean by success. you'll certainly
have to come up with a more more detailed rationale to get me to to believe
that monogamy has less of a chance of success than poly. and i certainly
don't think it's because certain choices are cut off. if two vegetarians
decide to cut out eating meat from thier diet, becuase it's what they want
to do, does that drive down thier chances of success? i don't think so.
> >people in the relationship are open to considering polyamory as an
> >option, whether they actually end up choosing that option or not isn't
> >the issue. In general, there will be more success. Do you agree?
with the openness of attitude yes, but see the above.
Don Wilkinson
: In article <lordbearC...@netcom.com>, lord...@netcom.com (Don
: Wilkinson) wrote:
: [what? it's gone!]
: > Yeah, this is partly why I don't have many male friends. I have never been
: > able to cotton to the mysogynist bellowing and testoterone chest thumping.
: well, *personally*, i don't mind the chest thumping. i can certainly pass
: on the mysogyny however.
Oh well... maybe I am just a different breed... certainly lacking in
the set of seemingly hormonal inclinations that many men seem to be
subject to. My "chest thumping" is more in the form of celebrating
my "Bear" totem energy than in objectifying people (women). Which
is not to say that you implied that was your take on it. :)
:
: > I see two rather different approaches.
: > 1) Boy's night out = chance to comiserate, reinforce stereotypes, do
: > male bonding, etc. Get drunk, act rude and beligerant, and generally live
: > up to the negative male stereotypes.
: hey. jake and i do this. go out, drink scotch, get looped, have fun. i
: don't know that we get rude and belligerant, but it's not all bad either.
: and it is male bonding. shoot, my brother and i have been known to hit the
: bars in new mexico and get involved in fisticuffs just for general fun
: (although not in the past few years). i don't think that makes me some
: yucky male. at most a barrel of contradictions, but not much more.
I get looped. I oogle people. But, I don't do much of what most would
call "male bonding". "Fisticuffs" is _definately_ *not* in my repetiore.
While I am quite capable (6'3", 245#, and trained in Karate), I see
violence as the last resort for the weak.
Forgive me my opinion, but I feel that it _does_ make you what *I* would
call a "yucky male". So, I am biased. <shrug>
(some levity and sarcasm inserted here) :)
:
: > BTW, do you have a particular objection to topless <etc.> bars? I mean,
: > I have never been to one, and from what I understand, they are bastions of
: > the kind of sleazy maleness that I dislike. No wonder a former g/f
: > shrieked in horror when I ildy commented on my interest in going to
: > such a place, as a curiousity. I wish it were just a case of; She thought
: > "it" might rub off on me. Rather, she did not seem to be able to under-
: > stand the simple curiousity I have. "Why, why, why???!!!??" I guess she
: > didn't trust that I could be a "good guy" and still want to check it out.
: boy do we disagree. so much so that both of my female partners have not
: only been to these kinds of places, but not been squicked by them either.
: of course, my main problem with them is that they are pretty damn
: expensive. and anymore if i want a free tabledance, i can just ask :). but
: in germany it wasn't at all uncommon to see couples go to these together.
Well, let's not forget that I was just telling a tale, rather than making
any particular value judgments. I happen to have no problem with dancers.
IN fact, I have dated a couple of them.
:how do feel about the chippendale dancers (other than excited?) :)
As to the CD guys, I don't care for them much -- they just are too
perfect, they make me feel less-than. :(
: sonny hays-eberts
: ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
sonny hays-eberts
Wilkinson) wrote:
>
>
> Oh well... maybe I am just a different breed... certainly lacking in
> the set of seemingly hormonal inclinations that many men seem to be
> subject to. My "chest thumping" is more in the form of celebrating
> my "Bear" totem energy than in objectifying people (women). Which
> is not to say that you implied that was your take on it. :)
no, objectifying women, to me, means that you define them as sperm
recepticles. when they are simply viewed as a part used in the sex act.
however i fail to see why one cannot appreciate all the aspects of women,
including physical beauty.
> I get looped. I oogle people. But, I don't do much of what most would
> call "male bonding". "Fisticuffs" is _definately_ *not* in my repetiore.
> While I am quite capable (6'3", 245#, and trained in Karate), I see
> violence as the last resort for the weak.
> Forgive me my opinion, but I feel that it _does_ make you what *I* would
> call a "yucky male". So, I am biased. <shrug>
> (some levity and sarcasm inserted here) :)
well, we strongly disagree on violence being a last resort for the weak.
being a bully is despicable, but there are people who either find it
enjoyable or do it for a living. as long as those people stick to like
minded people to enjoy things, i don't see it as all that much different
then considering it an activity between consenting adults.
also, despite the party pc line of violence being a yucky thing, *i* hold
to a view that certain principles are worth fighting for. and while i'm not
nearly as quick to engage in violence off the ice (hey, being only 5'5" and
175 lbs is a big handicap), to me, the failure to fight for deeply held
beliefs is cowardice.
ok. i know that there are serious pacifists out there, and that physical
violence is something that they'd never resort to, but nonetheless, they
have still found themselves engaging in battles of sorts and have willingly
placed themselves in jeopardy. that is not cowardice. so again, it's a big
mushy area. i just think that your quick labelling of all men who fight as
yucky is something i don't agree with. nonetheless, if you were to qualify
it as those who were bullies, i would be more inclined to agree.
just like in the hermit/dating thread, whenever you get into these big
generalities, there are always exceptions.
> : > BTW, do you have a particular objection to topless <etc.> bars? I mean,
> : > I have never been to one, and from what I understand, they are bastions of
> : > the kind of sleazy maleness that I dislike.
[gesnippt]
>
> Well, let's not forget that I was just telling a tale, rather than making
> any particular value judgments. I happen to have no problem with dancers.
> IN fact, I have dated a couple of them.
i find the first paragraph above to be in direct contradiction with the
second.
'from what i understand, they are bastions of the kind of sleazy
maleness..'
sounds very much like a value judgement.
> As to the CD guys, I don't care for them much -- they just are too
> perfect, they make me feel less-than. :(
well, me too. the hairless chest, i haven't learned to shave, but have abs
that ripple look that just seems the stereotypical gay male model look has
gotten so overused it's bland. but i imagine your reaction is very akin to
how a lot of women feel looking at female models as well...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"tongue-tied and tied to the tongue..."
--jesus and mary chain
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
Don Wilkinson
: In article <lordbearC...@netcom.com>, lord...@netcom.com (Don
: Wilkinson) wrote:
: >
: > Oh well... maybe I am just a different breed... certainly lacking in
: > the set of seemingly hormonal inclinations that many men seem to be
: > subject to. My "chest thumping" is more in the form of celebrating
: > my "Bear" totem energy than in objectifying people (women). Which
: > is not to say that you implied that was your take on it. :)
: no, objectifying women, to me, means that you define them as sperm
: recepticles. when they are simply viewed as a part used in the sex act.
: however i fail to see why one cannot appreciate all the aspects of women,
: including physical beauty.
What did I say about appreciating physical beauty? I happen to think that
many people needlessly avoid being upfront about their appreciation of
beauty in a person. Of course, being as many people's span of appreciation
is less than broad, and there is a bad rap associated with such, I can see how
some might wish to avoid the guilt by association. :)
My comment re: objectification has to do with the "down" side of strip
clubs, prostitution, and pronography. Granted, a less-than-the-majority
of persons (women) in the "sex" industry are happy, well-adjusted people
who choose to express themselves in a way that they find fun and financially
rewarding. The majority are "victims"; people selling themselves to a system
that has very little respect for them , and is using them for it's own gain.
Playing into this system will not get my respect. So, a bunch of slobbering
neanderthals fantasizing about how they are gunna "nail that bitch" makes
me nauseous.
:
: > I get looped. I oogle people. But, I don't do much of what most would
: > call "male bonding". "Fisticuffs" is _definately_ *not* in my repetiore.
: > While I am quite capable (6'3", 245#, and trained in Karate), I see
: > violence as the last resort for the weak.
: > Forgive me my opinion, but I feel that it _does_ make you what *I* would
: > call a "yucky male". So, I am biased. <shrug>
: > (some levity and sarcasm inserted here) :)
: well, we strongly disagree on violence being a last resort for the weak.
: being a bully is despicable, but there are people who either find it
: enjoyable or do it for a living. as long as those people stick to like
: minded people to enjoy things, i don't see it as all that much different
: then considering it an activity between consenting adults.
Oh BOY! do we disagree. I am no pacifist, but I have NO understanding
of the interest in violence for it's own sake. Boxing, et al -- definately
questionable activities for me. But, that is not what you were talking
about, was it? Your original line about "fisticuffs" in the context
of the conversation I saw lead me to visualize a barroom brawl-ish thing.
I must admit, however, that your remarks about considering an act between
consenting adults serves to make it more palatable. I Mean, I "beat"
people, right? ;^| Still, maybe I'm a wuss -- I can't see bashing
someone around for the "fun" of it.
: also, despite the party pc line of violence being a yucky thing, *i* hold
: to a view that certain principles are worth fighting for. and while i'm not
: nearly as quick to engage in violence off the ice (hey, being only 5'5" and
: 175 lbs is a big handicap), to me, the failure to fight for deeply held
: beliefs is cowardice.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You are way off on a tangent here! :)
Principles are worth defending. The _two_ times i have been violent, I was
defending a younger, smaller, female person from attack. That has NOTHING
to do with picking a fight in a bar, buddy. Let's not confuse fisticuffs
and brawls with the defense of Honor and Home.
: ok. i know that there are serious pacifists out there, and that physical
: violence is something that they'd never resort to, but nonetheless, they
: have still found themselves engaging in battles of sorts and have willingly
: placed themselves in jeopardy. that is not cowardice. so again, it's a big
: mushy area. i just think that your quick labelling of all men who fight as
: yucky is something i don't agree with. nonetheless, if you were to qualify
: it as those who were bullies, i would be more inclined to agree.
I did not label "all men who fight" as "yucky".
I was commenting on your remarks about "fisticuffs" in strip joints/bars.
I said that if that were something that you did/enjoyed, as you said it
was, then I would consider you a "Yucky male". And it was in quotes.
I think you are confusing "fight" with violence. Honorable combatants
have my respect. Bullies _and_ punks who fight for entertainment do not.
: > : > BTW, do you have a particular objection to topless <etc.> bars? I mean,
: > : > I have never been to one, and from what I understand, they are bastions of
: > : > the kind of sleazy maleness that I dislike.
: [gesnippt]
: >
: > Well, let's not forget that I was just telling a tale, rather than making
: > any particular value judgments. I happen to have no problem with dancers.
: > IN fact, I have dated a couple of them.
: i find the first paragraph above to be in direct contradiction with the
: second.
: 'from what i understand, they are bastions of the kind of sleazy
: maleness..'
: sounds very much like a value judgement.
(sigh)
your gesnippt leaves without the original context to work with, but I
will try to respond.
I will admit I choose to make a "value judgment" about "sleazy maleness" that I understand is prevalent at strip clubs, etc. This makes NO commentary on the
individual patron, and none of the individual dancer.
Having talked to dancers, I know what they feel and see and hear in those
places. MOST (not all) of it is very unattractive and lacking in respect
for her as a person, or her talent as an artist/performer.
Part of the reason I have avoided such places is not the they are inherantly
sleazy, because they are not. It is the men in there that can tend to
make a place "bad". I would be uncomfortable around a group of sleazoids
like that. I wouldn't want to be there. I would like to see the dancing. I
a sure I would find it fun, sexy, erotic, and beautiful. All good things.
: > As to the CD guys, I don't care for them much -- they just are too
: > perfect, they make me feel less-than. :(
: well, me too. the hairless chest, i haven't learned to shave, but have abs
: that ripple look that just seems the stereotypical gay male model look has
: gotten so overused it's bland. but i imagine your reaction is very akin to
: how a lot of women feel looking at female models as well...
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: "tongue-tied and tied to the tongue..."
: --jesus and mary chain
: sonny hays-eberts
: ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
- Bear
Carol Suelzle
>I hope the distinction is clear. :) I expect it is. Of course, while
>you could not reasonably expect to stop someone (your partner) from
>engaging in the former, you could hope... Of course, if I was involved
>with someone like (how would that even happen in the first place is a
>serious question, for me) this, I would doubt my decision to have them in
>my life any further. :^}
My husband only went out a couple of times, and he thought it was crazy - he
didn't see the point. When he quit, one of the guys teased him about it --
"Won't your wife *LET* you go?" It made him very angry, because
he had made the choice, not me. However, a couple of months later, he got the
last laugh. This guy has always asked my husband to tape movies, specials,
etc that are on cable T.V. My husband finally asked why he didn't just get
cable and tape the stuff himself, the guy replied "my wife won't let me have
cable." I nearly died laughing.
>BTW, do you have a particular objection to topless <etc.> bars? I mean,
>I have never been to one, and from what I understand, they are bastions of
>the kind of sleazy maleness that I dislike. No wonder a former g/f
>shrieked in horror when I ildy commented on my interest in going to
>such a place, as a curiousity. I wish it were just a case of; She thought
>"it" might rub off on me. Rather, she did not seem to be able to under-
>stand the simple curiousity I have. "Why, why, why???!!!??" I guess she
>didn't trust that I could be a "good guy" and still want to check it out.
I've been to them. I've known dancers. (All of them that I knew had been
physically abused by men and had been raped by customers at some point in
their careers. They were *not* happy women.) I *do* have a particular
objection. Oodles of them, I guess. First of all, there's the idea of the way
women *should* look. We are bombarded with it in magazines, tv, movies. Even
in this day and age, we still judge women primarily on how they look, and then
on who they are. Women are introduced as "the lovely, (beautiful, etc)
Michelle Pfeifer" . . . We have beauty contests. Slinky dressed women sell
cars, stereos, alcohol, etc. I'm not saying that this was or is created by
'men' to opress anyone. I'm just saying that it is this way.
Here's the problem - most of us (women) don't see ourselves as fitting the
image, we *don't* look that way. We're trained (rightly or wrongly . . you
be the judge) that men are primarily *visual* and that given a choice, they
will want to mate with the better looking female. We're told that men
separate sex and love, and that given the choice, they choose sex with the
HotBabe(tm) over sex with the OldLady(tm) anytime. Topless bars just seem to
re-enforce this idea. For our love to head for the topless bar is to say to
us "I *love* you honey, but the HotBabe(tm)'s are what really turns me on!"
It's telling us we're *not* good enough. If a women tells a man that his
penis isn't big enough, he's liable to be impotent for ages. My guy heading
for the topless bar *is* telling me that I'm not 'big enough' (metaphorically
speaking of course). Is it any wonder that we wouldn't feel very sexually
self-confident?
There's also the peer pressure - my husband is put down for the fact that he's
not interested in Playboy magazine, topless bars, and oggling the latest
'hotbabe' temp at the company where he works. He's been called a 'fag' all
his life for having such an attitude. The general idea being that if he were
a RealMan(tm) he'd want to do such things.
I only say this 'generally'. . .
I *really* don't believe that every man is this way. I don't even think most
are. I'm just saying that this kind of attitude widens the gap between men
and women, and prevents us from being really close to the ones we love the
most. Men are *not* the enemy.
Carol
sonny hays-eberts
[many other good lines died here]
> I *really* don't believe that every man is this way. I don't even think most
> are. I'm just saying that this kind of attitude widens the gap between men
> and women, and prevents us from being really close to the ones we love the
> most. Men are *not* the enemy.
this was good enough to see again. the only thing i can think to add is;
women are *not* the enemy either. (of course i have to fight back the
unattributed due to long term memory loss line of 'we have met the enemy
end he is us.' or whatever it was)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre and Vladimir and Darius
High sticks and red lights and checking
crowds going nuts and the dropping of gloves NHL '93-'94
these are a few of my favorite things. Let the season commence.
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
sonny hays-eberts
Wilkinson) wrote:
>
> My comment re: objectification has to do with the "down" side of strip
> clubs, prostitution, and pronography. Granted, a less-than-the-majority
> of persons (women) in the "sex" industry are happy, well-adjusted people
> who choose to express themselves in a way that they find fun and financially
> rewarding. The majority are "victims"; people selling themselves to a system
> that has very little respect for them , and is using them for it's own gain.
> Playing into this system will not get my respect. So, a bunch of slobbering
> neanderthals fantasizing about how they are gunna "nail that bitch" makes
> me nauseous.
me as well. i simply point out that you can't encapsulate the entire scene
as such.
[snip]
> Oh BOY! do we disagree. I am no pacifist, but I have NO understanding
> of the interest in violence for it's own sake. Boxing, et al -- definately
> questionable activities for me.
so would you find ice hockey questionable? (loaded question...) i mean it's
not like boxing in that violence is the end-all of it all, but it is quite
the integral part.
> But, that is not what you were talking
> about, was it? Your original line about "fisticuffs" in the context
> of the conversation I saw lead me to visualize a barroom brawl-ish thing.
yep, but i was relating to places were people who enjoy that sort of thing
go.
for myself, if there are bars where those sort of people congregate, and
choose to enjoy it, who am i or you to condemn it?
when they start fighting with people who don't want to (a type of
bullying), then i can not condone it at all.
> I must admit, however, that your remarks about considering an act between
> consenting adults serves to make it more palatable. I Mean, I "beat"
> people, right? ;^| Still, maybe I'm a wuss -- I can't see bashing
> someone around for the "fun" of it.
go read a.s.b. :) seriously, your reaction so strongly about it isn't far
off from the scorn and derision that is sometimes heaped on the a.s.b.
crowd by those who don't share that inclination. see the parallel?
[re: fighting for principles]
> Whoa, whoa, whoa. You are way off on a tangent here! :)
> Principles are worth defending. The _two_ times i have been violent, I was
> defending a younger, smaller, female person from attack. That has NOTHING
> to do with picking a fight in a bar, buddy. Let's not confuse fisticuffs
> and brawls with the defense of Honor and Home.
no, it was the blanket statement that 'fighting is the way of the weak',
with *no* exceptions allowed that made me bring that up.
>
> I did not label "all men who fight" as "yucky".
not directly there, but i was still referring to the blanket statement
above.
> I was commenting on your remarks about "fisticuffs" in strip joints/bars.
> I said that if that were something that you did/enjoyed, as you said it
> was, then I would consider you a "Yucky male". And it was in quotes.
>
> I think you are confusing "fight" with violence. Honorable combatants
> have my respect. Bullies _and_ punks who fight for entertainment do not.
well, maybe it's just my having fought a few times, but there is no such
thing as 'honorable combatants'. 1. you fight. 2. you get hurt. 3. you hurt
somebody.
hopefully you do more of 3 than 2. there is no honor in fighting, whether
it's done in bars or out in battlefields. heck, in hockey all you can hope
for is a match penalty.. :)
> (sigh)
> your gesnippt leaves without the original context to work with, but I
> will try to respond.
>
> I will admit I choose to make a "value judgment" about "sleazy maleness" that I understand is prevalent at strip clubs, etc. This makes NO commentary on the
> individual patron, and none of the individual dancer.
well, no, but it makes judgements on *all* male patrons. i think there is
another analogy here between this thread and the hermit one, only now our
roles are reversed.
kharma in action.... :)
> Having talked to dancers, I know what they feel and see and hear in those
> places. MOST (not all) of it is very unattractive and lacking in respect
> for her as a person, or her talent as an artist/performer.
> Part of the reason I have avoided such places is not the they are inherantly
> sleazy, because they are not. It is the men in there that can tend to
> make a place "bad". I would be uncomfortable around a group of sleazoids
> like that. I wouldn't want to be there. I would like to see the dancing. I
> a sure I would find it fun, sexy, erotic, and beautiful. All good things.
don't forget expensive..... :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
the puck drops here! (espn ad)
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
fearless freep
[word processor do to words what food processor do to food]
>women are *not* the enemy either. (of course i have to fight back the
>unattributed due to long term memory loss line of 'we have met the enemy
>end he is us.' or whatever it was)
'We have met the enemy and he is us.' -- Pogo Possum
fearless freep
William C. Gawne
anything to do with polyness. Either drop it or take it to e-mail.
-Bill
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Chris Andersen
> sonny hays-eberts (ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu) wrote:
<snip>
> : well, *personally*, i don't mind the chest thumping. i can certainly pass
> : on the mysogyny however.
>
> Oh well... maybe I am just a different breed... certainly lacking in
> the set of seemingly hormonal inclinations that many men seem to be
> subject to. My "chest thumping" is more in the form of celebrating
> my "Bear" totem energy than in objectifying people (women). Which
> is not to say that you implied that was your take on it. :)
"objectify" is one of those words I consider basically worse then useless.
Not only can it not be defined but it can easily be used to reduce another
person's point of view to a mere logical nothing.
I objectify people, but only in the sense that everyone objectifies people.
It would be impossible to survive in this world if everytime you interact
with someone you had to interact with them completely on an individual
basis. In other words, the minute you use any prejudicial judgement you
have objectified someone and it is impossible to survive without at least
some prejudices.
Therefore I would say that it is true that I am objectifying a woman when
I pay her money to take her clothes off (which is what stripping is). But
I don't necessarily interpret this as a bad thing. As long as she understands
and I understand that this is a financial transaction for services rendered
then I don't think moral judgements of good and bad really come into play.
Which isn't to say that there aren't a lot of sleezy goings on in the adult
entertainment business. But I think that's more a symptom of the sex-negative
society we live in then any "objectification". Any business on the edge is
bound to attract a greater share of exploiters.
> :how do feel about the chippendale dancers (other than excited?) :)
> As to the CD guys, I don't care for them much -- they just are too
> perfect, they make me feel less-than. :(
Hah! Ain't it grand that men and women can now feel equaly inferior?
--
Chris Andersen (chr...@agora.rain.com)
Deal only with the average and your life will be nothing but average.
Chris Andersen
[snip]
> My comment re: objectification has to do with the "down" side of strip
> clubs, prostitution, and pronography. Granted, a less-than-the-majority
> of persons (women) in the "sex" industry are happy, well-adjusted people
> who choose to express themselves in a way that they find fun and financially
> rewarding. The majority are "victims"; people selling themselves to a system
> that has very little respect for them , and is using them for it's own gain.
> Playing into this system will not get my respect.
How is this different from any other industry? I'd say that the majority of
American workers today are not happy in their jobs and are working for
companies that have little respect for them and are using them for their
own gain.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not using this as an excuse for sleeziness in the
sex industry. But is this sleeziness really all that different from any
other business?
My personal feeling is that the reason why people focus on the exploitation
in the sex industry while turning a blind eye to exploitation in other
industries is simply because it involves sex. However, more "enlightened"
protesters against the sex industry don't want to say that because they don't
want to be lumped in with the fringe religious groups.
The best thing that could be done to clean up the sex business is to first
see it as just another business and then realize that everyone working in
any business deserves at least some level of respect from the people they
work for.
> So, a bunch of slobbering
> neanderthals fantasizing about how they are gunna "nail that bitch" makes
> me nauseous.
It makes me nauseous as well. I have been a heavy patron of these types of
businesses (not much of late due to varying reasons) so I've had more then
enough experiences of this type thank you. Nothing spoils the wonderful
illusion that can be built by a stripper who puts a lot into her work then
to see some cretin and his buddies whooping it up and shouting "PUSSY! PUSSY!
PUSSY! WE WANT SOME PUSSY!"
It's at times like that that I have to seriously re-assess my views on the
sex business. Fortunately, I've always come down on the side of improving
the business rather than abolishing it.
--
Chris Andersen (chr...@agora.rain.com)
You can spend 20 years learning communication skills, logic, game theory,
and good PR and, even with all that training, you can still put your foot
Don Wilkinson
: In article <lordbearC...@netcom.com>, lord...@netcom.com (Don
: Wilkinson) wrote:
: >
[snip-o-rama]
: [snip]
: > Oh BOY! do we disagree. I am no pacifist, but I have NO understanding
: > of the interest in violence for it's own sake. Boxing, et al -- definately
: > questionable activities for me.
: so would you find ice hockey questionable? (loaded question...) i mean it's
: not like boxing in that violence is the end-all of it all, but it is quite
: the integral part.
Do the degree to which violence is present in ice hockey serves to partly,
if not mostly, explain why I do participate or watch it. It is somewhat,
and certainly less, questionable than boxing. :)
: > But, that is not what you were talking
: > about, was it? Your original line about "fisticuffs" in the context
: > of the conversation I saw lead me to visualize a barroom brawl-ish thing.
: yep, but i was relating to places were people who enjoy that sort of thing
: go.
: for myself, if there are bars where those sort of people congregate, and
: choose to enjoy it, who am i or you to condemn it?
Was I condemning it? Perhaps I was.
In my most lucid and level-headed (therefore highly rational and busy
talking from my mind, and not my heart) moments, I can say this:
I do not like violence. However, there are those who seem to "like" it.
As far as I am concerned, those persons are welcome to persue their
inclinations, as long they keep me out of it. And, I can always hope they
will kill each other off and purify the gene pool. :)
: when they start fighting with people who don't want to (a type of
: bullying), then i can not condone it at all.
: > I must admit, however, that your remarks about considering an act between
: > consenting adults serves to make it more palatable. I Mean, I "beat"
: > people, right? ;^| Still, maybe I'm a wuss -- I can't see bashing
: > someone around for the "fun" of it.
: go read a.s.b. :) seriously, your reaction so strongly about it isn't far
: off from the scorn and derision that is sometimes heaped on the a.s.b.
: crowd by those who don't share that inclination. see the parallel?
I read a.s.b. I am "one of them."
And again, when I keep it in the context of "consensual violence". I MUST
tolerate it. Yet, personally, I can not feel good about someone like that.
I simply do not respect it.
For me, I draw a difference between BDSM and "violence". BDSM has a lot
of things wrapped up in it. But, least of all, there is (or should be)
no sincere desire to inflict permanent bodily damage through the expression
of ANGER. You see, when I "play", I am careful to not "come from anger".
Of course, i expect that you might retort that "play fighting", like a
good old fashioned brawl, is not necessarily about "anger". And you'd have
a point. So, again, having debated myself into a corner I must say:
I dislike violence. However, should you choose to engage in it, that is
your right. I do not share your enjoyment of it. And would rather not
be exposed to it. Thank you. :)
: > I was commenting on your remarks about "fisticuffs" in strip joints/bars.
: > I said that if that were something that you did/enjoyed, as you said it
: > was, then I would consider you a "Yucky male". And it was in quotes.
: >
: > I think you are confusing "fight" with violence. Honorable combatants
: > have my respect. Bullies _and_ punks who fight for entertainment do not.
: well, maybe it's just my having fought a few times, but there is no such
: thing as 'honorable combatants'. 1. you fight. 2. you get hurt. 3. you hurt
: somebody.
: hopefully you do more of 3 than 2. there is no honor in fighting, whether
: it's done in bars or out in battlefields. heck, in hockey all you can hope
: for is a match penalty.. :)
I disagree.
There is, for me, honor in being a "warrior". Being a street punk with
itchy fists does nothing to impress me. Call me old-fashioned (it'd be
a complement in my mind) but I am into chivalry and honor and all that.
Dare you to compare someone like Sir Lancelot (okay, a fictional but
useful character) with Billy Joe Bob?
: > (sigh)
: > your gesnippt leaves without the original context to work with, but I
: > will try to respond.
: >
: > I will admit I choose to make a "value judgment" about "sleazy maleness" that I understand is prevalent at strip clubs, etc. This makes NO commentary on the
: > individual patron, and none of the individual dancer.
: well, no, but it makes judgements on *all* male patrons. i think there is
: another analogy here between this thread and the hermit one, only now our
: roles are reversed.
: kharma in action.... :)
<buzzer>
I said "prevalent". That is not an all-emcompassing term.
:
: > Having talked to dancers, I know what they feel and see and hear in those
: > places. MOST (not all) of it is very unattractive and lacking in respect
: > for her as a person, or her talent as an artist/performer.
: > Part of the reason I have avoided such places is not the they are inherantly
: > sleazy, because they are not. It is the men in there that can tend to
: > make a place "bad". I would be uncomfortable around a group of sleazoids
: > like that. I wouldn't want to be there. I would like to see the dancing. I
: > a sure I would find it fun, sexy, erotic, and beautiful. All good things.
: don't forget expensive..... :)
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: the puck drops here! (espn ad)
: sonny hays-eberts
: ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
Jim Baranski
Let me see if I can figure out what the topic actually is?!?!
In <carols.29...@uma.ohsu.edu> car...@uma.ohsu.edu writes:
My husband only went out a couple of times, and he thought it was crazy - he
didn't see the point.
I don't see much point in a lot of traditional 'male bonding', boys night out
stuff either. Spectator sports are boring to me. Like I told my friends that
I sailed with in the tuesday evening races; "This beats the hell out of
bowling!"
I don't see any point in needing to 'get away' from your loved ones either...
It seems to me that the only reason that you'd need to do that was if for some
reason there was an aspect of yourself that you were not allowed to be around
your Spice(s). Needing to spend some time by yourself, or needing to spend
some time alone with someone else, I can understand...
I've been to them. I've known dancers. (All of them that I knew had been
physically abused by men and had been raped by customers at some point in
their careers. They were *not* happy women.)
*Sigh* I agree with Bear. I'd enjoy watching dancers. I'd enjoy getting to
know dancers as people, not just as sex objects. But I've never been able to
bring myself to go to a strip joint because I don't want to be 'just another
drooling wolf'. I've walked into a couple of massage/hottub places, and it was
obvious that the people there did not have a positive attitude about
themselves, their "clients", or their work, and I've walked right back out.
That's what makes it sleezey.
It would be nice to find a place where the people enjoyed what they were doing,
and wanted to be sexual people, as opposed to being sex objects. But there's
something about the traditional strip joint that *objects*. I don't think that
it has to be that way. Part of it is the 'look but (you're not supposed to)
touch' attitude. That gets everybody all excited without providing and
satisfaction. Kind of how advertizing sells arousal, but never delivers
satisfaction.
I *do* have a particular objection. Oodles of them, I guess. First of all,
there's the idea of the way women *should* look. We are bombarded with it
in magazines, tv, movies. Even in this day and age, we still judge women
primarily on how they look, and then on who they are. Women are introduced
as "the lovely, (beautiful, etc) Michelle Pfeifer" . . . We have beauty
contests. Slinky dressed women sell cars, stereos, alcohol, etc. I'm not
saying that this was or is created by 'men' to opress anyone. I'm just
saying that it is this way.
A lot of this is a problem of the women's poor self respect, though rather then
it being all the attitudes of men. I don't share this attitude. I'm not wild
about beauty contests, I think they are pretty pointless, but I don't think of
them as terrible. I don't think of advertizing quite as much as
"objectifying" as "idealizing" women. And society idealizes men just as much,
just in different ways. I also don't need "real" women to be perfect, I don't
get caught in that. But I think a lot of people do want the women/men/* that
they are looking for in their lives to be perfect.
Here's the problem - most of us (women) don't see ourselves as fitting the
image, we *don't* look that way. We're trained (rightly or wrongly . . you
be the judge) that men are primarily *visual* and that given a choice, they
will want to mate with the better looking female. We're told that men
separate sex and love, and that given the choice, they choose sex with the
HotBabe(tm) over sex with the OldLady(tm) anytime. Topless bars just seem to
re-enforce this idea. For our love to head for the topless bar is to say to
us "I *love* you honey, but the HotBabe(tm)'s are what really turns me on!"
It's telling us we're *not* good enough. If a women tells a man that his
penis isn't big enough, he's liable to be impotent for ages. My guy heading
for the topless bar *is* telling me that I'm not 'big enough' (metaphorically
speaking of course). Is it any wonder that we wouldn't feel very sexually
self-confident?
Hmmm... This sounds like the same *ir-rational* :-) that people that use when
getting upset about their partner being involved with other people...
Jim.
PS :OB Disclaimer: These are generalities. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try
to wear it, and then complain to me about your sore toes.