life long commitment [Archive] - Polyamory.com Forum

serialmonogamist

07-22-2011, 02:34 AM

Why are you so opposed to a life-long relationship? I think this is the big question here? While I wouldn't go into a relationship with it having to be life-long, if someone was completely against the idea from the outset how could I open myself up emotionally to that person knowing that I had a finite time to be involved and then he would be moving on?

If after a certain period of time being in a relationship one party is wanting serious commitment and the other isn't that's when you address the issue. I don't think you can definitively know how you will feel after giving yourself honestly and lovingly in a relationship.

If all you want is a casual relationship (or relationships) that's a different matter but I would have thought there would be others out there looking for something similar.
Thanks to everyone for thoughtful responses. I used to think that monogamy doesn't have to be for life (maybe why I chose the name 'serialmonogamist') but strangely it disappointed me when my marriage ended. In any case, what sage says to question why I'm opposed to a life long relationship resonates with why potential partners are suspicious of me. I guess I just can't see defining myself with another person the way I once did with my (ex) spouse. It's not that I just arbitrarily want to end any relationship before I get old. I also don't see myself ever definitely saying, "well, there's no one else in this life I could have dated." It seems like there are always potential partners who slip by because of circumstances of some sort or others. So when you commit to a potentially lifelong (monogamous) relationship, you are excluding the possibility of entertaining any other relationship potential. Yet if you don't desire (simultaneous) polyamory, then the question is whether you should identify with polyamory or monogamy. Or can you be both?

dragonflysky

07-22-2011, 06:28 AM

In my experience, many women are interested in dating to find a life companion to grow old with. As a divorced person, I question my ability and desire to commit to life long companionship again. When I am honest about this with potential dating partners, they seem to take it as giving up on the relationship before it begins.

I'm someone whose interested in dating to find a life companion to grow old with. I appreciate it when a guy lets me know upfront that's not an interest of his. I don't see it as giving up on a relationship before it begins. Frankly, I don't care why he's not interested in a life long commitment anymore than I feel the need to explain or justify why I am. So, as you noted....why should or would either of us want to waste time when what we want is different and opposite??!! :confused: Yes, you or I may lose some potential dates based on either of our stances. But, it wouldn't be a good match to start with because of that basic difference. For me, being polyamorous could make a difference, because as long as I had a primary partner who wanted a long term committed relationship with me, I might be open to having someone else in my life who wanted a more casual "dating" relationship.

GroundedSpirit

07-22-2011, 05:13 PM

........... So when you commit to a potentially lifelong (monogamous) relationship, you are excluding the possibility of entertaining any other relationship potential. Yet if you don't desire (simultaneous) polyamory, then the question is whether you should identify with polyamory or monogamy. Or can you be both?

Hey Serial (cereal ? :) )

What are you getting at here ?
What do you mean when you say "don't desire SIMULTANEOUS poly" ?

I think the whole 'commitment' thing is largely cultural and difficult to discuss without evoking gender specific emotions.

I think commitment to ANYTHING has to be much more variable than people want to allow for. Things change. People change. You can't logically make some crystal ball projection indefinitely out into the future as if the future were not subject to those changes.

We 'commit' to something because we see win-win(s) in it and when that stops being the case we do have to reevaluate what makes the most sense (for all). Otherwise 'commitment' is nothing more than a TRAP !

I tend to 'commit' to today - and the start of tomorrow. My vision simply doesn't extend beyond that.

That said - my mate and I have been together since teenagers - but it's always been one day at a time. Or at least - till our 'shared' responsibilities lapsed (kids). That's a mutual commitment.

GS

serialmonogamist

07-23-2011, 01:10 AM

Hey Serial (cereal ? :) )
"Cereal?" "Serial monogamy" is a self-evident concept isn't it? It's when people have one partner at a time but not one partner (only) for life.

What are you getting at here ?
What do you mean when you say "don't desire SIMULTANEOUS poly" ?
In my personal situation, what I mean is that I have been married and divorced and now I don't see myself dating more than one person at a time, but I also don't see myself committing again to a life long relationship the way I did when I was married. So I guess it means I'm poly but can't handle more than one relationship at a time.

I think the whole 'commitment' thing is largely cultural and difficult to discuss without evoking gender specific emotions.
I'm not sure what this means or why you're saying it. I'm not trying to evoke emotions. I'm just trying to get insight into relationships beyond my own limited point of view.

I think commitment to ANYTHING has to be much more variable than people want to allow for. Things change. People change. You can't logically make some crystal ball projection indefinitely out into the future as if the future were not subject to those changes.
Yeah, that's the way I thought of commitment when I was 20. Gradually it evolved into a stronger concept. I don't think commitment is black and white, i.e. you're either committed or you're not. Someone could commit to a 5 year relationship, but it might be very painful when you end it after 5 years. The whole thing confuses me because it seems like relationships can only work if you live in the moment and avoid planning for the future.

That said - my mate and I have been together since teenagers - but it's always been one day at a time. Or at least - till our 'shared' responsibilities lapsed (kids). That's a mutual commitment.
Well, it can be a shock when one person cashes in on their freedom one day to leave. Who knows why people get sick of each other and don't want to be around the other anymore but it happens. How do you not promise you'll love someone forever out of honesty and not ruin what you have with them in the present?

nycindie

07-23-2011, 01:53 AM

. . . I don't see myself dating more than one person at a time, but I also don't see myself committing again to a life long relationship the way I did when I was married. So I guess it means I'm poly but can't handle more than one relationship at a time.
If you can't see yourself able to have more than one relationship at a time, how the hell would you even remotely call that poly?

dragonflysky

07-23-2011, 04:04 AM

In my personal situation, what I mean is that I have been married and divorced and now I don't see myself dating more than one person at a time, but I also don't see myself committing again to a life long relationship the way I did when I was married. So I guess it means I'm poly but can't handle more than one relationship at a time.

Serial......Polyamory doesn't necessarily mean that someone is making a life long commitment to multiple partners simultaneously. One could have a Primary, or more than one Primary, lifelong partner(s), a Primary or more than one Primary with whom there's not a lifelong commitment, a Secondary partner with or without a long term commitment, etc., etc. Are you trying to say that you could see yourself loving more than one person at a time but not wanting the complications that can go with carrying on loving relationships with different partners simultaneously??

nycindie

07-23-2011, 05:06 AM

serialmonogamist

07-23-2011, 07:38 PM

Oh, wait a minute. I just re-read Serial's post...

I think what he means is that since he feels he can't make a life-long commitment, he must be poly -- except for only being able to do that with one person at a time. If I am reading that correctly, it means that he has made the erroneous assumption that polyamorous relationships cannot be life-long.

Yeah, and here he seems to say that a life-long partnership automatically means monogamy, as if polyamory could never be that:

Do I have this right, Serialmonogamist?
Why does the multiquote function reverse the order of the posts? No matter, you are getting closer. I wouldn't say that I can't make a lifelong commitment, because I did that when I was married by having kids. I do think I'm poly, though, in the sense that I have the potential to love more than one person in a lifetime. However, I am monogamous in the sense that I can't deal with the complexity of more than one relationship at a time. It's really a problem because I really don't like having to worry about getting into a relationship and then losing it at some point, but I'd also be dishonest to say that I couldn't see myself with more than one person for the rest of my life.

Serial......Polyamory doesn't necessarily mean that someone is making a life long commitment to multiple partners simultaneously. One could have a Primary, or more than one Primary, lifelong partner(s), a Primary or more than one Primary with whom there's not a lifelong commitment, a Secondary partner with or without a long term commitment, etc., etc. Are you trying to say that you could see yourself loving more than one person at a time but not wanting the complications that can go with carrying on loving relationships with different partners simultaneously??
I know that polyamory and (lifelong) commitment are completely independent concepts. Yes, I don't just think that I, personally, am capable of (potentially) loving more than one person at a time, but I believe it is universally possible (sorry to those who find universalizing pushy). I once had a gf start breaking up with me because she was having feelings for an old bf and I told her it was ok b/c it is possible to have feelings for more than one person at the same time. She said that's not how she works, but I couldn't believe that suddenly all her feelings for me would end because she felt something for the other guy. I think fear of "slut-stigma" causes people to block out love for more than one person at a time, when they do. I'm not a person who naturally reacts to stigmas and taboos, so I'm maybe somewhat more aware of their effects. Anyway, hope this clarifies my position - and thanks for your interest.

If you can't see yourself able to have more than one relationship at a time, how the hell would you even remotely call that poly?
How (the hell) can someone call themselves mono if they can feel attracted to and date more than one person in their life?

nycindie

07-23-2011, 08:35 PM

I wouldn't say that I can't make a lifelong commitment, because I did that when I was married by having kids.
Okay, whatever -- whether you can't, won't, or don't want to wasn't the point of my sentence. It was asking whether you think of monogamy as a life-long thing and polyamory as short-term or temporary.

I do think I'm poly, though, in the sense that I have the potential to love more than one person in a lifetime.But that's not poly, really. Polyamory is about cultivating multiple loving relationships and being involved with more than one at a time. You can have had numerous relationships in a lifetime and still be monogamous -- one does not equal the other.

How (the hell) can someone call themselves mono if they can feel attracted to and date more than one person in their life?If you think of monogamy and polyamory as structures or blueprints for relationships and not (or not just) a personality trait, you would see it is possible!

To clarify, I am simply a human being who can choose to be monogamous or polyamorous in my relationships. I have always been monogamous (meaning that was my choice, not my nature) until last year at the age of 50, when I chose to explore polyamory. Does that mean that in my 35-some-odd years of dating and being single -- and MONOGAMOUS -- that I was only with one person and expected it to last forever? No, of course not. I was monogamous in all of my committed relationships. It's simply a way of relating, it's not a contract for the rest of your life.

serialmonogamist

07-23-2011, 08:48 PM

Okay, whatever -- whether you can't, won't, or don't want to wasn't the point of my sentence. It was asking whether you think of monogamy as a life-long thing and polyamory as short-term or temporary.
I think of them as independent concepts. I think you could have multiple lifelong commitments, yes. Why would you assume that because you have more than one lover that they have to be temporary?

But that's not poly, really. Polyamory is about cultivating multiple loving relationships and being involved with more than one at a time. You can have had numerous relationships in a lifetime and still be monogamous -- one does not equal the other.
My view is that serial monogamy is a type of polyamory where you exclude past and future lovers from your life while being with one at a time.

If you think of monogamy and polyamory is merely structures or blueprints for relationships and not (or not just) a personality trait, you would see it is possible!
I'm not sure what you mean here.

To clarify, I am simply a human being who can choose to be monogamous or polyamorous in my relationships. I have always been monogamous (meaning that was my choice, not my nature) until last year at the age of 50, when I chose to explore polyamory. Does that mean that in my 35-some-odd years of dating and being single -- and MONOGAMOUS -- that I was only with one person and expected it to last forever? No, of course not. I was monogamous in all of my committed relationships. It's simply a way of relating, it's not a contract for the rest of your life.
I think of true monogamy as meaning you can't ever stop loving someone enough to find another person. This is something I've been dealing with through my divorce. It is easy to say that someone isn't/wasn't your soulmate because things didn't work out but what do you call positive memories where you find the same person who loved them deeply still living inside your heart? I don't think that person is ever going to die so am I really monogamous considering I am lonely and would like a new relationship? How do you think it works when you try to have a monogamous relationship while being honest that you will always worship the memories of being with your ex (even though the relationship is long gone)? I'm sure many people (mono and poly) would call it unhealthy not to want to dispose of the parts of your heart rooted in past relationships, but if it isn't (and I don't believe it is), then polyamory would be a way to have a new relationship without disavowing the broken one.

neegoola

07-23-2011, 09:22 PM

while ideas (mine first of all) are getting clearer and clearer through important posts going on here, i felt in jumping in to add:

there are some couples (don't know what about any poly, actually) who begin a marriage/union fixing a determined period to their relationship; for instance, one year plus one day: on that day they will "decide" if to renew their union or to split. every couple chose the length of their first/sec/third/etc. steps relationship.
do you think you would make someone happier with this?
can you imagine some results?

nycindie

07-23-2011, 09:39 PM

Why would you assume that because you have more than one lover that they have to be temporary?I don't. I thought you did, and so I was asking you. It seemed that you equate monogamy with life-long and polyamory with... not that. Here is where I tried to figure you out on that point:. . . here he seems to say that a life-long partnership automatically means monogamy, as if polyamory could never be that:. . . when you commit to a potentially lifelong (monogamous) relationship

It still seems to me that you see monogamy as something that is meant to last forever.

My view is that serial monogamy is a type of polyamory where you exclude past and future lovers from your life while being with one at a time.Well, that's interesting. Never would have thought of it that way. But then you wouldn't need to learn about managing poly relationships, befriending metamours, sharing time, households, responsibilities, and so on, as many of the poly peeps here do. You'd really just be living monogamously and having memories and past experiences of former relationships to draw on -- nothing new there. I really don't think that's a very useful way of looking at sequences of monogamous relationships. What good does it do you to think of it as polyamory?

If you think of monogamy and polyamory as structures or blueprints for relationships and not (or not just) a personality trait, you would see it is possible!I'm not sure what you mean here.I was offering another perspective. What I meant was this: relationships can be either monogamous or polyamorous. Those are structures or mating practices. If you look at it that way, instead of whether or not someone identifies as poly or mono, you can see that we can choose to be (in the sense of how we live) either one, in numerous relationships during the course of a lifetime. The practices within a relationship, whether it is two people devoted only to each other or any number of people in a poly tangle, does not determine whether it lasts forever or not. It is simply a reflection of desires and parameters for a certain type of commitment. This was my answer to your question about how someone could call themselves mono "if they can feel attracted to and date more than one person in their life." You know, if I meet someone, enter into a relationship with them and we choose monogamy as the structure for our relationship, it doesn't mean we are committing to be together for a lifetime (unless, of course, it reaches that point and we do make that commitment). But monogamy doesn't require that. It's a just a structure for a relationship of two people to be only involved with each other and no one else. Doesn't mean there can't be other mono relationships to follow.

(I don't believe people inherently are or are not polyamorous or monogamous, although I do believe we can have certain experiences, cultural influences, and/or levels of open-mindedness or rebellion that would sway a person toward one practice or another)

I think of true monogamy as meaning you can't ever stop loving someone enough to find another person. . . . what do you call positive memories where you find the same person who loved them deeply still living inside your heart? I don't think that person is ever going to die so am I really monogamous considering I am lonely and would like a new relationship?I don't believe in soulmates. I think of love as an endless pool within myself. When I love someone, it means I have let them get close enough to me to touch that pool of love I have inside me. Some people immerse themselves more deeply than others, but once they've reached it, it cannot be undone. But people change, move on, die, etc., and relationships end. And many loving relationships are just meant to bless my life for a finite period of time. The path to my heart will always be there, although with time it will eventually be overgrown with thickets and weeds. Then someday someone else will blaze another path to my heart. All the people I've loved, whether platonic friends, family, or those with whom I've been sexually intimate, all accessed the very same pool and each has made their own trail to it (and therefore, to the center of me). How sad if it wasn't that way. The love I feel, the depth to which I feel it, and the imprint they have made on me have nothing whatsoever to do with whether I choose to have monogamous or polyamorous relationships in my life.

sage

07-23-2011, 11:37 PM

This is all so confusing that I can't even really make sense of it.

Serial what is your current relationship status?

You seem to be completely unaware that when people are in a loving relationship together feelings and connections develop to a point where you just can't walk away because someone better comes along. This is why women would be extremely cautious about getting into a relationship with you. Even I (who has a love/hate relationships with polyamory) can see that polyamory works because new love can be explored without having to destroy an existing loving relationship.

GroundedSpirit

07-24-2011, 12:15 AM

...........
I think of true monogamy as meaning you can't ever stop loving someone enough to find another person.

Hey Serial,

I clipped this small snippet but there's many others equally suitable strewn throughout your posts on this thread.

What I'm getting over here is that you may be seriously confused about the meanings/implications of monogamy, polyamory - and maybe even love !
Or insisting on creating your own definitions ?

I think this is why a number of readers are struggling to understand you and trying to explain some basics to you.

Relationships are not defined/classified by their duration.
I'm not sure "love" ever "stops" ,but evolves. When we've truly loved someone there's a part of them - that piece we did love - that we'll always love. But like we say in so many other places and topics - life (or people) is/are not static. We can well 'love' someone - i.e. wish them nothing but happiness and success in their life and contribute to that when we can, and still not be able to live with them or tolerate negative aspects they've taken on.

You seem to state that you are incapable of literally 'seeing' another person when you ...........'love' ? one person. You become blind to the external world of love potential. i.e. the very definition of a monogamous person.

That's perfectly fine. But not to be confused with polyamory.

GS

serialmonogamist

07-24-2011, 02:06 AM

Relationships are not defined/classified by their duration.
I'm not sure "love" ever "stops" ,but evolves. When we've truly loved someone there's a part of them - that piece we did love - that we'll always love. But like we say in so many other places and topics - life (or people) is/are not static. We can well 'love' someone - i.e. wish them nothing but happiness and success in their life and contribute to that when we can, and still not be able to live with them or tolerate negative aspects they've taken on.
Hey, GS. Yes, I think this is a concept that people have lost in modern serial monogamy. I had relatives that were married and could no longer live together but they stayed married after separating and never got divorced. This is also the way it seems to have been done during the time the old testament was written - i.e. you were supposed to honor your existing marriages while taking on new marital responsibilities.

You seem to state that you are incapable of literally 'seeing' another person when you ...........'love' ? one person. You become blind to the external world of love potential. i.e. the very definition of a monogamous person.
No, that's my point. I'm not incapable of finding other people attractive or feeling love for past lovers. I just can't deal with the idea of having to reassure one person that my relationship with another isn't going to take away from my love for them and then go off and not worry that I'm doing something hurtful while having fun with someone else. In my mind I can reason that it's all ok, but when I see a person feeling a little guarded the next time I see her after being out with another woman and she's saying, "no, really I'll be alright," I still feel responsible for her pain on some level.

It still seems to me that you see monogamy as something that is meant to last forever.
Monogamy technically refers to marriage, not love. If you would have true "monoamory," you would only be able to love one person, period. Can love totally end? I think you have to believe that if you truly believe in your own "monoamory" but in reality the part of you that loved someone always lives on somewhere inside your heart. So to say you completely stopped loving someone seems more like something you tell yourself to be able to move on and still view yourself as "monoamorous."

Well, that's interesting. Never would have thought of it that way. But then you wouldn't need to learn about managing poly relationships, befriending metamours, sharing time, households, responsibilities, and so on, as many of the poly peeps here do. You'd really just be living monogamously and having memories and past experiences of former relationships to draw on -- nothing new there. I really don't think that's a very useful way of looking at sequences of monogamous relationships. What good does it do you to think of it as polyamory?
Because I'm trying to figure out a way to reconcile my desire for monogamy with my feelings of confusion at being potentially polyamorous. I don't think wanting to limit myself to one relationship makes me a hypocritical poly. It's just another poly choice, I think. What I don't want to have to do anymore is say things like, "I don't know what I ever saw in her," when I know darn well what I saw in her and I still see it in her, only I know nothing will come of it anymore. Or I don't want to say, "no, I never meet any other women who I find attractive and would like to date if I had the chance" when I would like to date them if I wasn't in a relationship. Such honest issues aren't as important as organizing time, households, responsibilities, etc.?

you can see that we can choose to be (in the sense of how we live) either one, in numerous relationships during the course of a lifetime.
If monogamy was as simple as how you choose to live, then people would never ask if you ever thinking about being with someone else and care if you say, "yes." I see more honesty in polyamory than monogamy for the most part, which is why I'm attracted to discussing life and love in this forum.

You know, if I meet someone, enter into a relationship with them and we choose monogamy as the structure for our relationship, it doesn't mean we are committing to be together for a lifetime (unless, of course, it reaches that point and we do make that commitment). But monogamy doesn't require that.
Try telling someone monogamous when you start dating that you aren't interested in committing for life. If you say you can't know until later, they might take their chances but then you risk having to be the one to disappoint them and tell them to start their search for a life companion again. I don't want to do that to someone so I just tell them worst-case scenario, you're not going to become my soulmate because I already had one - but then they usually don't want to invest time and energy in a potentially temporary relationship.

I don't believe in soulmates. I think of love as an endless pool within myself. When I love someone, it means I have let them get close enough to me to touch that pool of love I have inside me. Some people immerse themselves more deeply than others, but once they've reached it, it cannot be undone. But people change, move on, die, etc., and relationships end.
To me, "soulmate" means your relationship never ends with a person, even after they or the relationship dies, because that person has become an engrained part of your soul. This could happen for many reasons I think, but one big one is when someone is the parent of your child and you always see parts of them in the child you love.

And many loving relationships are just meant to bless my life for a finite period of time. The path to my heart will always be there, although with time it will eventually be overgrown with thickets and weeds. Then someday someone else will blaze another path to my heart. All the people I've loved, whether platonic friends, family, or those with whom I've been sexually intimate, all accessed the very same pool and each has made their own trail to it (and therefore, to the center of me). How sad if it wasn't that way. The love I feel, the depth to which I feel it, and the imprint they have made on me have nothing whatsoever to do with whether I choose to have monogamous or polyamorous relationships in my life.
Nicely said. I look back on most relationships with gratitude for what I was able to learn and express through the interactions. Sometimes it takes me a while to arrive at the realization of what was positive that came out of it, but eventually I start seeing the light.

You're absolutely right that love is energy inside you that you send out to others and express in other ways. It's just some people want to be structured into your life in a certain way and if they aren't, they would appreciate it if you'd please seek someone else to direct your love toward. With monogamists, this seems to occur typically when you can't/won't tell them they're the only person you can think about having in your life. Rationally, they might understand that you don't want to dump them or hurt them, but they can't handle the thought that you could be interested in others. Maybe that's natural polygamy, maybe it's jealousy, or maybe it's both. I just wish there was a way around it without having to deal with more than one relationship at a time.

GroundedSpirit

07-25-2011, 05:36 PM

.............

No, that's my point. I'm not incapable of finding other people attractive or feeling love for past lovers. I just can't deal with the idea of having to reassure one person that my relationship with another isn't going to take away from my love for them and then go off and not worry that I'm doing something hurtful while having fun with someone else. In my mind I can reason that it's all ok, but when I see a person feeling a little guarded the next time I see her after being out with another woman and she's saying, "no, really I'll be alright," I still feel responsible for her pain on some level.

I understand this. You seem like a kind, thoughtful person which of course is admirable. But somewhere along the way the enlightenment comes that we can't take responsibility for internally generated 'harm' to others. If that makes any sense. It's much different than physically slugging someone over the head with a bat.
We all have our own belief systems and sometimes those beliefs conflict with the realities in life. It's simply impractical (impossible?) to take ownership of the rest of the world's belief systems and any pain that's caused because of conflicts with those. We don't want it, don't intend it (hurt) but also don't have control over someone else's thought process. The power is truly not within us.

Monogamy technically refers to marriage, not love.

Well - that may be YOUR definition. I know some people, including members here, who would disagree with that. Language is SUCH a trap !
For some monogamy is a way of living and viewing the world. Because the 'love' we are speaking of here is what most refer to as 'romantic' love, some actually do become blind to other potential 'romantic' love once in love with one person. Not the same 'love' you have for....say....your pet. It has nothing to do with 'marriage' which is nothing more than a legal contract which stipulates (for most) living situations etc.

Because I'm trying to figure out a way to reconcile my desire for monogamy with my feelings of confusion at being potentially polyamorous. I don't think wanting to limit myself to one relationship makes me a hypocritical poly. It's just another poly choice, I think.
I think this is just playing with words and confusing the issue - and you.

In it's most basic form, polyamory refers to the ability and openness (recognition) to love (in a romantic way) more than one person. And it's a very natural thing in the majority of humans. But it's been condemned by the powers that be for so many hundreds of years and therefore becomes a conflict when it surfaces. There are few (until recently) resources available for those who discover it within themself to turn to to learn ways to handle it constructively.

It's quite possible, if painful and difficult, to BE (self acknowledge) polyamorous yet still live monogamously because it's easier, more practical or sometimes temporary. That's different than BEING (self identifying) monogamous.

That's how language can confuse so easily. Words have to be understood within the context of the sentence they are used in.

Try telling someone monogamous when you start dating that you aren't interested in committing for life. If you say you can't know until later, they might take their chances but then you risk having to be the one to disappoint them and tell them to start their search for a life companion again.

Again, the cultural trap. And again the fallacy of owning someone else's beliefs and actions. Unfortunately the whole concept of commitment (or lack of) has come to be used as an identifier of ethical intent. Which of course is ludicrous !

Instead of looking at relationships in a more realistic manner a majority of society is caught in this programming.

Maybe a little analogy..........

Suppose you are a top gymnast and coach. You meet a wonderful new enthusiast and discover a common passion which draws you together. The 'love' you discover between you is composed of all these parts, mutual respect and admiration, passion for a shared path, desire to pursue it together etc.

The relationship may last for some indeterminate time - years - until finally your love has mastered the skills as far as you can take them. You are blissfully happy - for each other. Happy in the choices you've made. There will always be a bond between you because of what you've shared together.

But he/she now craves additional challenges. Having gained mastery of one thing they discover another. Say.......climbing.

But you're not a climber. And what's more, really have no interest.
Poly says "go climb - and come back and share your excitement with me !"
Mono say - "sorry - I don't climb - no climbing allowed unless you leave me so I can find another gymnast".

Which mode of living makes more sense to YOU ???

GS

nycindie

07-25-2011, 06:18 PM

. . . I'm trying to figure out a way to reconcile my desire for monogamy with my feelings of confusion at being potentially polyamorous. I don't think wanting to limit myself to one relationship makes me a hypocritical poly. It's just another poly choice, I think.

You are confusing yourself unnecessarily. Seeing serial monogamy as a form of polyamory just ain't so, and won't reconcile anything for you.

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart invented the term "polyamory" in a 1990 article she wrote for Green Egg Magazine (the term was included in a glossary sidebar, not the actual article). Here is her definition of the word: "The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."

If you're into definitions and the evolution of the word, you might find this page interesting:
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/polyamory-enters-oxford-english.html

BTW, Polyamorous Percolations, the blog I linked above, is a great resource to learn about poly. Also xeromag: http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html. Maybe doing some reading will help clear up some of your confusion.

MonoVCPHG

07-25-2011, 07:12 PM

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart invented the term "polyamory" in a 1990 article she wrote for Green Egg Magazine (the term was included in a glossary sidebar, not the actual article). Here is her definition of the word: "The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."

.

Not to nit pick but...

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=15829757399&topic=17224

In Dec 2010, Alan, who runs the website Polyamory in the Media, did something very interesting. (Incidently, his website is about how p. Check it utolyamory is being covered in the media, and is very cool, even apart from this particular
episode). Check it out:
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/

Alan used search engines on the GoogleBooks site to search for instances of the
word polyamory, polyamorous, polyamorists, etc., as well as French and other
versions of the word. The GoogleBooks search engine lets you search a vast
number of books that have been digitized for specific words and phrases. Alan
did this for the years between 1400 A.D. and 1991. Lo and behold, his efforts
turned up seven specific items prior to the magic year of 1990, including
several earlier than the 1980s - and one as early as 1953! (Check out his
website for the full scoop, including a continuing series of updates on the
matter).

In a single stroke, Alan has demonstrated that the word polyamory and its
various forms was already in existence in the English language - and some other
European languages, at least 47 years before it was allegedly invented in
1990-1992. Way to hang, Alan!

serialmonogamist

07-26-2011, 03:12 AM

You are confusing yourself unnecessarily. Seeing serial monogamy as a form of polyamory just ain't so, and won't reconcile anything for you.
Definitions aren't my major concern. You could say humans are animals so human-human sex is bestiality, but that would just be semantics. My concern is about how to reconcile feelings with behavior in a way that doesn't involve hyprocricy or dishonesty. I think that is more important an issue that whether you're having multiple relationships at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I think practical issues are also important, but the reason I'm here is because I would like to achieve truth in relationships.

I understand this. You seem like a kind, thoughtful person which of course is admirable. But somewhere along the way the enlightenment comes that we can't take responsibility for internally generated 'harm' to others. If that makes any sense. It's much different than physically slugging someone over the head with a bat.
Thanks for your moral support. I have actually thought this for some time. The problem is that humans have this bad habit of treating culture as if it was automatically applicable beyond themselves. To give an extreme example, you can tell someone that you didn't see it as rape when you were taking her to fulfill your desires, but you're still responsible for the internal harm generated for her. That's a bad example because it involves physical body-boundaries, but many people claim emotional boundaries are just as sacred.

We all have our own belief systems and sometimes those beliefs conflict with the realities in life. It's simply impractical (impossible?) to take ownership of the rest of the world's belief systems and any pain that's caused because of conflicts with those. We don't want it, don't intend it (hurt) but also don't have control over someone else's thought process. The power is truly not within us.

The power isn't to control others. It's to empathize. And when we empathize, we give power to others. And when we give that power to others, we also take power for ourselves by inviting their return empathy. This is the basis for many emotional social-contracts and social power, imo, for better or worse.

In it's most basic form, polyamory refers to the ability and openness (recognition) to love (in a romantic way) more than one person. And it's a very natural thing in the majority of humans. But it's been condemned by the powers that be for so many hundreds of years and therefore becomes a conflict when it surfaces. There are few (until recently) resources available for those who discover it within themself to turn to to learn ways to handle it constructively.
My interest is in truth, as I think that is the interest of people who wish to be true to their feelings by pursuing multiple relationships at the same time. If I was interested in monogamy without question, I don't think I would have become interested in a polyamory forum. I wish to have a sexual culture where people can be honest about their feelings and desires, regardless of whether they choose to pursue one, more, or no relationships at a time.

It's quite possible, if painful and difficult, to BE (self acknowledge) polyamorous yet still live monogamously because it's easier, more practical or sometimes temporary. That's different than BEING (self identifying) monogamous.
Exactly, but I think it's more painful to have to BE polyamorous and live monogamy whey you are disavowing your polyamorous nature. I think many monogamists are doing this, simply because they want to believe that having one relationship at a time but multiple relationships in a lifetime is natural.

But you're not a climber. And what's more, really have no interest.
Poly says "go climb - and come back and share your excitement with me !"
Mono say - "sorry - I don't climb - no climbing allowed unless you leave me so I can find another gymnast".

Which mode of living makes more sense to YOU ???

This is my whole point. I think the reality of love and relationships is that you don't lose your place in your heart for someone just because your interests diverge. Yet in monogamy, it is expected that you kill the part of your heart that loved one person to love another. I think that's negative and destructive, even if you don't want to maintain more than one active relationship at a time. This is why it is so important to me to reconcile a polyamorous heart with the desire for a monogamous lifestyle.

nycindie

07-26-2011, 04:39 AM

Tonberry

07-26-2011, 07:22 AM

Serial, while I understand that you mean having more than one partner in your lifetime isn't what you consider true monogamy, you need to understand that if you talk about being poly, people will get misconceptions.

Monogamy in human has never meant only one person in your lifetime. It's very rare among humans. Even before divorce was allowed, people remarried after the death of their spouse. People had affairs. Life long monogamy is rare and when people say "monogamy", that's not what they mean, they mean "serial monogamy". They mean "when I'm with someone, I don't see anyone else". It doesn't matter if the relationship is a few months old or lasts for years.

I think it would be bad for you to present yourself as poly. This isn't how most people understand the word. And you're not part of the minority. As a serial monogamist, you're pretty much the norm. While use a word that requires coming out, explaining stuff and possibly being ostracized while what you are is already what people assume and expect of you?

"Monogamy refers to the state of having only one mate at any one time". I can't even find a place that has a definition talking about one mate for your whole life. I mean, that means marrying the first person you date, and never dating anyone else if you break up. That means if the person dies on your first date, you never see anyone else. That means if you first fall in love as a kid with someone you could never get, you never have a partner ever.
It's very, very limiting, and therefore understandably very rare.

As far as lifelong goes, just be honest about that. Say you're looking for an exclusive but not lifelong relationship. People will understand that much better. And when describing yourself, serial monogamist will be the accepted term, not poly. And even if you think serial monogamy is a subset of poly, it would still be the more accurate and specific term.

serialmonogamist

07-26-2011, 09:40 PM

Serial, while I understand that you mean having more than one partner in your lifetime isn't what you consider true monogamy, you need to understand that if you talk about being poly, people will get misconceptions.
I find it really interesting how divorce was nearly completely forbidden before the laws changed in the 1970s and since then divorce and remarriage have grown so much in popularity. Still, people insist on calling themselves monogamous (and believing it) because of the cultural taboos associated with polyamory (usually just called, "non-monogamy," no?). So I think that there are many many closet polyamorists, who may even be denying it to themselves in order to maintain mono-conformity. Behaviorally, such people may be monogamous, and that's what counts imo. I am just trying to establish the relationship between feelings and behavior and choices. It almost seems in the spirit of "don't ask don't tell" being repealed that more people will start wanting to be more open and honest with each other and themselves instead of living in confused conflict and repression.

Monogamy in human has never meant only one person in your lifetime. It's very rare among humans. Even before divorce was allowed, people remarried after the death of their spouse. People had affairs. Life long monogamy is rare and when people say "monogamy", that's not what they mean, they mean "serial monogamy". They mean "when I'm with someone, I don't see anyone else". It doesn't matter if the relationship is a few months old or lasts for years.
The problem is that the whole distinction between polyamory and serial monogamy rests on symbolically defining your relationships according to what constitutes the boundaries between love, friendship (platonic love?), etc. People seem to always be limiting some aspect of their actions to assert boundaries.

I think it would be bad for you to present yourself as poly. This isn't how most people understand the word. And you're not part of the minority. As a serial monogamist, you're pretty much the norm. While use a word that requires coming out, explaining stuff and possibly being ostracized while what you are is already what people assume and expect of you?
I'm interested in honest living. I'm trying to resolve what seems to be a massive contradiction in sexuality. I'm trying to make sense of why some people's sexuality is respected and others decried. I can't accept pure cultural and moral relativism. I am seeking moral reason.

"Monogamy refers to the state of having only one mate at any one time". I can't even find a place that has a definition talking about one mate for your whole life. I mean, that means marrying the first person you date, and never dating anyone else if you break up. That means if the person dies on your first date, you never see anyone else. That means if you first fall in love as a kid with someone you could never get, you never have a partner ever. It's very, very limiting, and therefore understandably very rare.
There's also this interesting part of the bible that talks about the thought of adultery already being adultery. So I'm wondering if so many people are capable of serial monogamy, what is stopping them from considering other relationships while involved in a current one? Or is there a culture of secrecy and shame that is practically impossible to avoid?

As far as lifelong goes, just be honest about that. Say you're looking for an exclusive but not lifelong relationship. People will understand that much better. And when describing yourself, serial monogamist will be the accepted term, not poly. And even if you think serial monogamy is a subset of poly, it would still be the more accurate and specific term.
Yes, I think you are describing mono-normative culture pretty well. Like I said, though, I'm interested in a slightly deeper cultural level.

nycindie

07-26-2011, 09:58 PM

I find it really interesting how divorce was nearly completely forbidden before the laws changed in the 1970s and since then divorce and remarriage have grown so much in popularity.

Hey, FYI, I'm a genealogist and have researched numerous civil records of quite a number of families (for myself and other people) -- enough to tell you that many of our ancestors got divorced wa-a-a-ay before the 1970s! True, divorce was frowned upon, but not exactly forbidden -- there were always ways around it. My ggparents staged fake photographs of my ggfather with another woman (a family friend) even though the split was amicable, just to get around a law that required infidelity to sue for divorce. This was in the early 1920s. Believe me, divorce was much more common than you think, even among the working class (meaning that it wasn't always just for the privileged rich). And often couples split unofficially and just started families with other people. I myself, when my divorce is final, will be the fifth generation divorced in my own family. I have traced divorces that took place in the 18th century. So, it actually is not such a recent development in modern life.

There's also this interesting part of the bible that talks about the thought of adultery already being adultery.
What does that have to do with anything? I do not see the relevance of this statement.

serialmonogamist

07-27-2011, 02:04 AM

Hey, FYI, I'm a genealogist and have researched numerous civil records of quite a number of families (for myself and other people) -- enough to tell you that many of our ancestors got divorced wa-a-a-ay before the 1970s! True, divorce was frowned upon, but not exactly forbidden -- there were always ways around it. My ggparents staged fake photographs of my ggfather with another woman (a family friend) even though the split was amicable, just to get around a law that required infidelity to sue for divorce. This was in the early 1920s. Believe me, it was much more common than you think, even among the working class. And often couples split unofficially and just started families with other people. I myself, when my divorce is final, will be the fifth generation divorced in my own family. I have traced divorces that took place in the 18th century. So, it actually is not such a recent development in modern life.
That's interesting. I knew it was allowed in special cases but I didn't know the special cases were commonly simulated to justify common divorce. I've also seen many divorces in my family and out, but after doing it myself, the illusion of it broke down for me. Before I got married, though that marriage was just a piece of paper but after getting divorced I realized that was just a piece of paper too. Everything comes down to the actual people and the underlying relationships, imo.

What does that have to do with anything? I do not see the relevance of this statement.
Because people who feel that they are sinning by having sexual fantasies should clear their consciences by embracing polyamory and injecting ethics into their fantasy lives, I think, or at least they should have that option even if they don't want to have simultaneous multiple relationships. Also, I think many people get dishonored as a parent of their ex's children because their ex feels the need to degrade them as a show of preference for a new partner. You don't have to keep sleeping with someone to honor them as the parent of your children, imo - and honoring is a form of love, I think.

ihaveasecret

07-27-2011, 02:54 AM

Because people who feel that they are sinning by having sexual fantasies should clear their consciences by embracing polyamory and injecting ethics into their fantasy lives, I think, or at least they should have that option even if they don't want to have simultaneous multiple relationships. Also, I think many people get dishonored as a parent of their ex's children because their ex feels the need to degrade them as a show of preference for a new partner. You don't have to keep sleeping with someone to honor them as the parent of your children, imo - and honoring is a form of love, I think.
Hello. I don't think a lot of what you've posted has made much sense to me, but this paragraph is especially odd. I don't think it's that common for people to feel that fantasizing is a sin, thankfully. That would be a rather immature and unevolved view (I generally feel sorry for anyone who believes in sin, anyway).

The second part of your paragraph also reflects immaturity. While divorce is difficult and people do snipe at each other, most people I know who have been through it don't trash their exes in front of the kids and do "honor" them. It seems like you have been surrounded by nastiness, negativity, and disingenuous people.

serialmonogamist

07-27-2011, 04:23 AM

Hello. I don't think a lot of what you've posted has made much sense to me, but this paragraph is especially odd. I don't think it's that common for people to feel that fantasizing is a sin, thankfully. That would be a rather immature and unevolved view (I generally feel sorry for anyone who believes in sin, anyway).
I googled the quote from the bible if you're interested for reference sake:
[quote]<< Matthew 5:28 >>

New International Version (©1984)
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The relevant point, imo, is that even when people manage to control their physical interaction with people other than their partners, they may still think about it. To many people this is "sinful" within monogamy even if they don't use the word "sin." What I'm trying to point out is that if polyamory isn't sinful (e.g. polygamy is practiced in the bible) then there should be ways to ethically regulate "adultery of the heart." You seem like the type of person who is going to react negatively to any form of lofty religious-based language, so try to just think of this in terms of the everyday struggles people go through trying to be faithful to their partners, whether in monogamy or polyamory.

The second part of your paragraph also reflects immaturity. While divorce is difficult and people do snipe at each other, most people I know who have been through it don't trash their exes in front of the kids and do "honor" them. It seems like you have been surrounded by nastiness, negativity, and disingenuous people.
Maturity is scarce in my experience and seemingly mature people are often immature in many ways as well. Whether you trash you ex in front of you kids or not, the trashing you do of them in your mind is dishonoring them if it's not constructive criticism. People should continue to love their parents children, imo, if for no other reason than because their children do. I would call this a form of polyamory or polygamy that people attempt to repress by symbolically partitioning themselves from their "ex feelings" for the person they're divorced from. I think a mature honest attitude toward divorce would involve honoring the continuing commitment of co-parenting. If you think people are mature enough to do this, however, try approaching any of your divorced friends with kids about about post-divorce parenting as a continuing form of marriage and see if they don't react with negativity and rejection toward the idea that their marriage isn't completely dissolved. Really, it's just about boundary-assertion for many people.

ihaveasecret

07-27-2011, 04:39 AM

try to just think of this in terms of the everyday struggles people go through trying to be faithful to their partners, whether in monogamy or polyamory.You say this as if it is automatic and expected for everyone to struggle with fidelity. This has not been my experience. When I love someone, I don't feel any struggle to be faithful to them. My love sustains me and there is no reason not to be faithful, and I've never felt any temptation to cheat. But I'm a very loyal person, and it comes easily to me to honor my commitments. I don't struggle with this at all.

Maturity is scarce in my experience and seemingly mature people are often immature in many ways as well.
Then I feel sorry for you about that. Maybe you need to expand your social circle.

nycindie

07-27-2011, 04:55 AM

NeonKaos

07-27-2011, 11:59 AM

SM, you said earlier in this thread that you have some confusion and want to reconcile some conflicting feelings within yourself. I think you are just running around in circles and confusing yourself more -- your arguments are very confusing, complex, and a bit convoluted. I honestly think it sounds like you need break, some kind of therapeutic or relaxing retreat. You seem so overly occupied with figuring things out, but lots of times clarity comes when we walk away from a problem for a bit.

This just described pretty much what an LSD-trip is like (minus the black light and Dark Side of the Moon). (I snipped the parts about poly just because this kind of rumination can be fixated on any topic).

GroundedSpirit

07-27-2011, 02:39 PM

..........I don't really believe in divorce so polyamory seems like a solution to my ethical dilemma.

Ooooooooo - k

So what DO you believe is the solution for relationships that have gone.........toxic. When it is obvious that being together is no longer in ANYONE's best interest ?

I think you have to be careful about such sweeping statements.

GS

serialmonogamist

07-27-2011, 05:08 PM

SM, you said earlier in this thread that you have some confusion and want to reconcile some conflicting feelings within yourself. I think you are just running around in circles and confusing yourself more -- calling monogamy a form of polyamory, trying to apply the Bible to modern relationships for some strange reason, verbalizing your disappointment in people... your arguments are very confusing, complex, and a bit convoluted. I honestly think it sounds like you need break, some kind of therapeutic or relaxing retreat. You seem so overly occupied with figuring things out, but lots of times clarity comes when we walk away from a problem for a bit.
I guess you're just being concerned and not just insulting me as being crazy in an indirect way. I'm surprised you and others who have reacted negatively to me don't see anything in the kinds of cultural analysis I do. Granted the bible is controversial and tends to evoke strong reactions in many directions, but it has been such a major basis for so many cultural traditions, I value it as a source of insight into culture. Maybe you disagree with the idea that fantasizing about someone else's partner is a form of adultery, but surely you can at least appreciate the idea of considering the ethics of non-physical behavior?

Also, to be clear I wasn't crudely calling monogamy a form of polyamory. I was exploring the level of feelings vs. the level of outward behavior and I'm thinking that many monogamous people have polyamorous feelings/tendencies. Think about the discussion that's gone on regarding homosexuality as an inborn thing. Just as you can feel gay but behave heterosexually, surely people can feel polyamorous and behave monogamously, and I think many people do. Why is this not a good polyamory topic for discussion?

You say this as if it is automatic and expected for everyone to struggle with fidelity. This has not been my experience. When I love someone, I don't feel any struggle to be faithful to them. My love sustains me and there is no reason not to be faithful, and I've never felt any temptation to cheat. But I'm a very loyal person, and it comes easily to me to honor my commitments. I don't struggle with this at all.
It is a theme in a lot of popular media and fiction, for one thing. Second, even if you don't have any trouble remaining faithful, why would you have less potential to be attracted to someone just because it would be unfaithful to your partner(s) to be? Humans define relationships in order to manage social relationships, but aren't there underlying feelings that defy control on some level?

Then I feel sorry for you about that. Maybe you need to expand your social circle.
It's more than I am fundamentally conscious of people as being complex beings. Everyone has inner immaturities. Mature behavior requires the ability to resist potential immature behavior but the potential remains for everyone, doesn't it? If you look closely, you can recognize how repressed feelings and desires manifest themselves in other ways. If you dislike these kinds of psychological ideas, you may disagree, I think.

nycindie

07-27-2011, 05:14 PM

I guess you're just being concerned and not just insulting me as being crazy in an indirect way. I'm surprised you and others who have reacted negatively to me don't see anything in the kinds of cultural analysis I do.I'm not "reacting negatively;" I just disagree with most of what you say. Furthermore, your "cultural analysis" doesn't make much sense to me, either. It has come across as convoluted and a bit unsound, and could seem a bit crazy to some, actually, but that's not an insult. It just seems like you are following your thoughts in a circle that will get you nowhere - that's why I suggested taking a break.

Maybe you disagree with the idea that fantasizing about someone else's partner is a form of adultery, but surely you can at least appreciate the idea of considering the ethics of non-physical behavior?No, I don't "surely" appreciate it -- I don't even know what you mean here? Are you saying now that someone's thinking can be called non-physical behavior and judged to be ethical or not? Ethics and morals are subjective and culturally-based, anyway. Religious views of relationships don't affect me, as I don't put much credence into religion or religions telling me what to do in my relationships or in my bedroom.

Also, to be clear I wasn't crudely calling monogamy a form of polyamory. I was exploring the level of feelings vs. the level of outward behavior and I'm thinking that many monogamous people have polyamorous feelings/tendencies. . . . Why is this not a good polyamory topic for discussion?That is not what you've been saying. You have plainly stated that you view serial monogamy as a form of polyamory. Numerous people have told you that that is not what polyamory is, even considering the fact that there are many ways to practice polyamory. Polyamory is about simultaneously having more than one loving relationship at a time. Of course, there may be times when a poly person has only one relationship happening, but the difference between them and a mono person is that they are still open to finding and cultivating additional relationships, while a mono is devoted to one only. Now, you seem to be saying that that if a mono person has attractions or thoughts about being with others, they are poly, even though they would never pursue a poly relationship.

. . .even if you don't have any trouble remaining faithful, why would you have less potential to be attracted to someone just because it would be unfaithful to your partner(s) to be?It is natural to have attractions to people, but that doesn't mean there is automatically a temptation to cheat. In my marriage, we acknowledged attractions, but there was never any possibility that either of us would act on those attractions -- we're human and just let it be. We never struggled to be faithful, either, because of attractions. While I was married and monogamous, just because someone came into my life and I found them attractive, that didn't mean I was then polyamorous. Attractions are a part of life and happen every day.

serialmonogamist

07-27-2011, 05:33 PM

Ooooooooo - k

So what DO you believe is the solution for relationships that have gone.........toxic. When it is obvious that being together is no longer in ANYONE's best interest ?

I think you have to be careful about such sweeping statements.
I suppose I could be more careful, but once I figure out something for myself, I have trouble presenting it apologetically and with much attention for some other culture. Do you, for example, enjoy apologetically explaining your poly views and choices to mono-normative people?

What I really mean about divorce is that I don't think a relationship really ends as "dissolution" implies. This was the impression I had of what divorce was supposed to mean before I did it. What I find is that divorce is more like a second marital contract regulating the individuation of communal property, childcare responsibilities, forbidding harassment, etc. If the relationship was completely dissolved, there wouldn't be anything to regulate with a contract, so it is a social contract that defines a new relationship. The reason this probably sounds creepy to hear me say is that it sounds like someone who is trying to maintain ties with someone else who doesn't want them, which would be sort of rape-ish. The problem is that relationships stay a part of you for as long as you remember them, so there are rituals people try to use to give themselves a sense of control over the life-choices they've made and are stuck with in one way or another.

I find that whenever a new relationships begins/ends, I have a closed-off period when I don't really want to seek out anyone new. A honeymoon period during NRE, and a mourning period when a relationship ends. So no matter how much I intellectually shy away from poly-fi, I have my poly-fi tendencies come very naturally at certain times. Imagining that out of my two relationships, one would end, that would in practicality translate to a period of freely chosen monogamy.
I really enjoy reading the words of someone who is so aware of their natural feelings in reflection that they can rethink categorical assumptions about themselves based purely on the logic of definitions. I am also aware of such natural monogamous feelings, which is what attracts me to monogamy, I think, even though I have such a strong interest in coming to terms with the human potential to love more than one person in life (whether at different moments or simultaneously).

serialmonogamist

07-27-2011, 06:16 PM

I'm not "reacting negatively;" I just disagree with most of what you say. Furthermore, your "cultural analysis" doesn't make much sense to me, either. It has come across as convoluted and a bit unsound, and could seem a bit crazy to some, actually, but that's not an insult. It just seems like you are following your thoughts in a circle that will get you nowhere - that's why I suggested taking a break.
I don't know why I'm getting defensive when you're just stating your impression honestly. I guess I just don't like the idea of being "convoluted, unsound, and a bit crazy to some." I can understand that you disagree with things I say, but I think my analytical reasoning is sound enough to be a basis for reasonable discussion and I don't see how my thoughts are going in circles - maybe you'd care to explain in more detail/depth. It feels like you might be saying I should "take a break" because you don't want me pursuing these ideas on this forum for some reason. If that's not the case, and you really just see that as a way for me to reach greater clarity, thanks but I actually like working through these ideas philosophically. I'm hoping to get more constructive insights from people who are comfortable reflecting on their inner and outer experiences.

No, I don't "surely" appreciate it -- I don't even know what you mean here? Are you saying now that someone's thinking can be called non-physical behavior and judged to be ethical or not? Ethics and morals are subjective and culturally-based, anyway. Religious views of relationships don't affect me, as I don't put much credence into religion or religions telling me what to do in my relationships or in my bedroom.
Ethics and morals are ultimately at the individual level, imo, no matter what people think about them being something external and imposed. It is always up to individuals to decide what they believe and whether or how to incorporate ethics or morality into their judgment and decision-making.

As for the physical vs. non-physical, I think that is important regardless of anything else. Feelings are one thing and actions toward others are another. Sometimes you may think about saying or doing something to someone but then choose not to for some reason. I think it's hard on people to have to keep feelings a secret or engage in denial out of fear of humiliation or judgment. If someone's been indoctrinated into cultural beliefs and norms about monogamy that lead to them feeling shame and self-hate for feelings that don't seem to conform to what's normal, that's a problem imo. If you're feeling like you can't feel poly and live mono because there's something wrong with feeling one way and acting another, that could also cause such stress.

That is not what you've been saying. You have plainly stated that you view serial monogamy as a form of polyamory.
Oh, right. But my whole point is that serial monogamy may be monogamy in terms of outward behavior but in terms of feelings, you have to have the capacity to love more than one person to be able to end one relationship and begin another. A truly monogamous person would stay broken-hearted for life and never fall in love anew. This was always how I imagined Blue Roses from the Glass Menagerie living after the guy she fell in love with broke the horn off her glass unicorn. Such true monogamy may be a cultural fiction or an unattainable ideal, but I think it does exist as a cultural ideal - one that has been strongly criticized and lost popularity, like the idea of remaining a virgin until marriage or reserving sex only for procreation.

Numerous people have told you that that is not what polyamory is, even considering the fact that there are many ways to practice polyamory. Polyamory is about simultaneously having more than one loving relationship at a time.
If you limit the meaning of polyamory to the practice of simultaneous multiple relationships, what do you call the capacity to love multiple people when you're not doing it? Wouldn't that be like saying a man who feels attracted to men isn't gay or bi as long as he's not acting on his attraction?

Of course, there may be times when a poly person has only one relationship happening, but the difference between them and a mono person is that they are still open to finding and cultivating additional relationships, while a mono is devoted to one only. Now, you seem to be saying that that if a mono person has attractions or thoughts about being with others, they are poly, even though they would never pursue a poly relationship.
Yes, and I think repressing polyamorous feelings may be as fundamental to mono culture as homophobia has been found to be for heteronormative culture. This is of course open for debate, but surely it's not a ridiculous idea to discuss.

It is natural to have attractions to people, but that doesn't mean there is automatically a temptation to cheat. In my marriage, we acknowledged attractions, but there was never any possibility that either of us would act on those attractions -- we're human and just let it be. We never struggled to be faithful, either, because of attractions. While I was married and monogamous, just because someone came into my life and I found them attractive, that didn't mean I was then polyamorous. Attractions are a part of life and happen every day.
I remember reading this about your marriage in another thread. I agree there is a difference between feeling attraction and the desire to cheat. I think it was great that you were able to honestly reflect and talk about this in your marriage. It is something I am only slowly learning to do, because I have always felt a strong desire to protect my partner's feelings from fearing that I won't cheat on them just because I found someone attractive. I think they might have felt the tension and taken it as a desire to cheat or just me being secretive in general. I find it hard to come to terms with the idea that people tell each other that they would never think of being with another person to make their partner feel good, but that it would be deceptive. I have known people who preferred not to be told about their partner's feelings and activities just to avoid jealousy, and I regret that I considered it legitimate to sacrifice honesty for a comfortable facade. On the other hand, it takes a lot of depth and maturity to accept the knowledge that your partner can feel attraction for others and still have faith in them when they tell you they want to remain monogamous. I can see both sides even though honesty seems more liberating when people can deal with truth and consequences.

Tonberry

07-27-2011, 07:23 PM

What I find is that divorce is more like a second marital contract regulating the individuation of communal property, childcare responsibilities, forbidding harassment, etc.

Well if there are stuff in common to begin with, what to you expect? That they'll kill all the kids and burn all the property so you can decide how much or little you want to interact?

On the other hand I had no kids or property with my husband, so once we're divorced it will be back to where we were before. We can be friends if we want to be, we can never talk to each other again. Divorce is dissolving the marriage contract, but there are some things that can't be destroyed, of course. It's still not the same kind of relationship though, more akin to a relationship with another family member, who can be someone you get along with or someone you hate, but at any rate you'll have to deal with them.

nycindie

07-27-2011, 07:39 PM

. . . I had no kids or property with my husband, so once we're divorced it will be back to where we were before. We can be friends if we want to be, we can never talk to each other again.

Same in my case, too. Not every marriage has property and children to negotiate over.

Derbylicious

07-27-2011, 07:57 PM

Going way back to the beginning I think one of the issues that might come up for women when you tell them that you aren't interested in a lifelong commitment with them is that it sounds like you're just putting in time until something better comes along. I think that you can approach the situation as wanting to take one day at a time and to enjoy every moment you have together. You can also be upfront in not being interested in remarriage.

I think it's good to be honest in relationships, even from the outset. However there are ways of saying things while still being tactful.

A lot of the rest of the discussion has just lost me all together to be honest. Define your sexuality as you will, just be clear with potential partners about what that definition means to you. If you are defining yourself as poly are you comfortable with a partner who you are with having other partners at the same time as they are involved with you? If you feel you have the potential to love more than one at a time but don't want to take on more than one relationship (by choice) then you can absolutely be poly. I (at the moment) limit myself to 2 relationships because it just isn't realistic for me to have enough time and energy to devote to more than that. If I took on a third relationship everyone would get the short end of the stick.

serialmonogamist

07-28-2011, 02:57 AM

Same in my case, too. Not every marriage has property and children to negotiate over.

Well if there are stuff in common to begin with, what to you expect? That they'll kill all the kids and burn all the property so you can decide how much or little you want to interact?

On the other hand I had no kids or property with my husband, so once we're divorced it will be back to where we were before. We can be friends if we want to be, we can never talk to each other again. Divorce is dissolving the marriage contract, but there are some things that can't be destroyed, of course. It's still not the same kind of relationship though, more akin to a relationship with another family member, who can be someone you get along with or someone you hate, but at any rate you'll have to deal with them.
Property, kids, etc. are just easy examples because they are persisting materialities of the relationship. I actually find it more interesting to look at how a relationship can continue to exist as part of your life just through its memory, the lessons you learned, and the person you became through it. Your partner literally became a part of you and that part of you can't be divorced from the rest of you, even if you cease all contact with their physical body. I'm sure some people will wince at me talking about physical bodies as just one part of a person, but if you think about it people extend to everything they have created and touched. I think the idea of divorce denies the complexity of being. Obviously you just don't want to be around someone sometimes, and you might decide you'd rather not see them anymore at all. Yet you can't really separate yourself from the part of them inside of you, which I think is part of the reason people get so adamant about distancing themselves from the other person's physical body.

Phy

07-28-2011, 06:19 AM

Isn't this plain logical SM? Who would think of a divorce in terms of "changinge one's past life"? When you divorce you change a part of your future, not being legally mixed with the person you have been married to before. That's it. I have never heard of someone who would look at a divorce in the way you decribe it.

It doesn't matter what or whom you experienced in life, all your experiences stay with you and model you in a way. That is why people change and divorce is a change of a relationship status. The idea of divorce doesn't deny the complexity of being, as you put it. It's an act of free will to make a change for the future. Officially for the state and personally for yourself.

Tonberry

07-28-2011, 07:26 AM

I actually find it more interesting to look at how a relationship can continue to exist as part of your life just through its memory, the lessons you learned, and the person you became through it. Your partner literally became a part of you and that part of you can't be divorced from the rest of you, even if you cease all contact with their physical body.

Well... honestly, I don't see a difference with being in a relationship with that same person for the same number of years and breaking up, without marriage and divorce ever entering the picture.
It's true, every interaction you have with someone becomes part of your history and part of who you are. I'm confused why you needed to divorce to be aware of that fact. That's the kind of things that happens with linear time.

GroundedSpirit

07-28-2011, 02:20 PM

I don't know why I'm getting defensive when you're just stating your impression honestly. I guess I just don't like the idea of being "convoluted, unsound, and a bit crazy to some." I can understand that you disagree with things I say, but I think my analytical reasoning is sound enough to be a basis for reasonable discussion and I don't see how my thoughts are going in circles - maybe you'd care to explain in more detail/depth.

Hi Serial,

Hey, there's a bunch of people here trying to really help you. I suggest you try to LISTEN closer. Nobody is attacking etc but some of your 'logic' is very illogical and obviously driven from your cultural experience and background. The same as everyone. It seems (?) that your background, experiences etc may have come from a number of conflicting directions and you are running on half honey and half black tar. You need to stop the engine and get some clarity.

That's why NYC (and others) have tried to tell you you are going in circles.

First off I'd suggest dispensing with the religion. You don't seem like an overly religious person and there's nothing better than religion to confuse some things that should be basic and simple. That's intentional by the way. It's hard to call someone on some false belief if they never say the same thing twice. They can always fall back and say they have a basis for agreement. So if you can leave that completely out of your thought process (and discussion) you might better stay 'on track'.

Next I think you just need to take a deep breath and ACKNOWLEDGE that serial monogamy and polyamory are simply NOT the same thing. You are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to make some connection between the two that simply doesn't exist except through your own semantic manipulations. It's like trying to make a connection between a horse and a dog based on the fact they have four legs. Sorry - the connection is NOT there ! So stop trying to make one. It's a waste of your time and energy and just is making your own clarity more elusive.

The primary difference, as has been explained by a number of us, lies in the word SIMULTANEOUS. And as has also been explained, that simultaneity may include potentiality if unrealized. Even though one may only have a single love partner at a given moment, they are open (and often pursuing) additional ones. And this 'philosophy' is voiced openly (hopefully) to anyone involved - or potentially involved - with them.

Contrast this with a monogamous outlook where it's acknowledged that there will be - at least in a physical sense - no "additional" lovers once engage already with one.

It's really quite simple and a waste of time & energy to try to manipulate it semantically otherwise.

Does that help ?

So if you are having this internal struggle you simply have to ask yourself that simple question.

Are you comfortable engaging in a SIMULTANEOUS loving relationship with more than one person - and furthermore, are you comfortable with your lover(s) doing the same.

If the answer is a resounding YES you may choose to adopt the label "poly" honestly. And live accordingly. If the answer is NO, then you must adopt the monogamous label.

No rocket science or deep philosophy required here............

GS

GroundedSpirit

07-28-2011, 02:40 PM

I suppose I could be more careful, but once I figure out something for myself, I have trouble presenting it apologetically and with much attention for some other culture. Do you, for example, enjoy apologetically explaining your poly views and choices to mono-normative people?

I don't understand the use of the word "apologetically" in this discussion/context ??? Is english a second language for you by chance ?

Otherwise, any 'apologizing' aside, I actually enjoy explaining my view to others who's views may differ. I actually consider it an obligation ! Knowledge is important to all of us and anything we can do to expand each other's horizons is a plus.

What I really mean about divorce is that I don't think a relationship really ends as "dissolution" implies. This was the impression I had of what divorce was supposed to mean before I did it. What I find is that divorce is more like a second marital contract regulating the individuation of communal property, childcare responsibilities, forbidding harassment, etc. If the relationship was completely dissolved, there wouldn't be anything to regulate with a contract, so it is a social contract that defines a new relationship.

Again, here I find a strange or naive view of the word. Why/how would you ever consider divorce as just wiping a board clean of any/all history ? That's impossible (unfortunately in many cases). As we're discussing on another thread, I often am wondering where in the world you got some of your ideas.

The level of interaction in the future after a divorce is absolutely an individual thing and no blanket statement can be adopted. Again, playing semantic games (social contract) to your own detriment.

GS

NeonKaos

07-28-2011, 03:45 PM

Serial monogamist reminds me of a white person who insists they are "really a black person on the inside" because they want to fit in with what they perceive as an "edgy" or "countercultural" scene.

redpepper

07-28-2011, 07:47 PM

serial monogamy may be monogamy in terms of outward behavior but in terms of feelings, you have to have the capacity to love more than one person to be able to end one relationship and begin another.serial monogamy is loving one person romantically, falling out of love with them and then falling in love with someone else. Polyamory is falling in love over and over romantically with many people all at the same time. There is no ending one relationship to begin another in poly.

nycindie

07-28-2011, 09:24 PM

Hear, hear! What GS & RP said.

(and NK, too)

serialmonogamist

07-28-2011, 10:03 PM

That is why people change and divorce is a change of a relationship status.

Often people confuse status with reality - or rather they want to cover up reality with status. I think my fascination with this issues goes beyond marriage and divorce to a more general philosophical level. For example, I've been watching the politics of ousting Kaddhafi from power and it amazes me the lengths that people will go to to get him to surrender his own status as leader. Obviously people could simply stop recognizing him as leader but instead of doing that, they fight militarily against his status.

I think the same thing happens with monogamous breakups. People fight to prove that there's no further relationship so that other monogamous people will accept that their past relationship is over and start dating them. I think the belief that the relationship wholly ends is a status-orientation that ignores the reality of relationships and their complexity.

serialmonogamist

07-28-2011, 10:05 PM

Serial monogamist reminds me of a white person who insists they are "really a black person on the inside" because they want to fit in with what they perceive as an "edgy" or "countercultural" scene.
lol. You don't think transracialism is legitimate? Do you think transgenderism is illegitimate too? What's the difference? You don't think a person can be poly and want to become mono or the reverse?

Minxxa

07-28-2011, 10:25 PM

I find circular logic and arguing about semantics to be as enjoyable as hitting one's head into a brick wall.

I used to have a roomate who liked to "debate"-- or what he called debate. Basically he just liked to argue, using stuff he made up and nit picking on little tidbits. As soon as you presented an argument that he couldn't refute, he'd make something up or change the discussion or nitpick on how you were using a word.

I am having flashbacks...

nycindie

07-28-2011, 10:43 PM

Oh geez. Many relationships are just not that complex, nor as co-dependent. Sometimes relationships just fucking end, no matter how much one wants to cling to their memories.

NeonKaos

07-28-2011, 11:41 PM

lol. You don't think transracialism is legitimate? Do you think transgenderism is illegitimate too? What's the difference? You don't think a person can be poly and want to become mono or the reverse?

No, that isn't what I said. What I said was, you remind me of a white person who thinks that "being a black person inside" is cool and edgy. I think you're trying to convince yourself that you're poly so you can feel included.

"Real" transexual persons are not transexual so they can fit in with other transexual people. However, I do think there are people who pretend to be transexual because they think it's cool and edgy and they want to explore that social scene as "one of them".

That is what I have decided when it comes to this "serial monogamy = polyamory" jibber-jabber of yours.

nycindie

07-29-2011, 12:00 AM

Heh-heh, you said jibber-jabber.

serialmonogamist

07-29-2011, 12:20 AM

No, that isn't what I said. What I said was, you remind me of a white person who thinks that "being a black person inside" is cool and edgy. I think you're trying to convince yourself that you're poly so you can feel included.

"Real" transexual persons are not transexual so they can fit in with other transexual people. However, I do think there are people who pretend to be transexual because they think it's cool and edgy and they want to explore that social scene as "one of them".

That is what I have decided when it comes to this "serial monogamy = polyamory" jibber-jabber of yours.
If you knew me, you would know that I'm a very strong critic of conformism and the use of superficial facades to impress others. If you'd read my other posts you would realize that my concern is with the underlying conflicts that occur for many monogamous people between their ability to be attracted to more than one (type) of person and their desire to monopolize someone else's interest and be wholly devoted without "straying." Thus, when monogamous people enter into a relationship, it is often with the hope that "this is the one," meaning they don't intend to break up. Nevertheless, if they are a serial monogamist, they clearly have the potential to be attracted to different people. So my issue is with coming to terms with the underlying poly spirit among (at least some) serial monogamists. I personally think that I have the capacity to be interested in other people while in a committed monogamous relationship even though I wouldn't choose to pursue it. Nevertheless, this causes me to question my monogamous devotion. I think monogamy can be a behavioral choice but people can still recognize their "poly nature" does not make them inherently flawed as a monogamist. It's an issue of people coming to terms with their true nature and accepting that it is not false to feel one way and choose to behave in some other way for practical or moral reasons.

serialmonogamist

07-29-2011, 12:27 AM

Oh geez. Many relationships are just not that complex, nor as co-dependent. Sometimes relationships just fucking end, no matter how much one wants to cling to their memories.
This opens up a whole other area of interest of mine: clinginess and cling-phobia. Anyway, I don't see why you would be so rude about this when you have "honesty is sexy" as your footer. My issue is with honesty. I don't think divorce is honest. I think polygamy is more honest. I think the legal requirement to divorce one spouse before entering a relationship with a second causes people to "end" relationships that don't necessarily need to end and deny connections that don't need to be denied. Call me "clingy" all you want but realize that all that label does is challenge people to keep beating to death the part of their heart that still feels something for past relationships, which is a shame because love should always be cherished as a positive thing, imo. Just because two people can't interact constructively in a relationship anymore doesn't mean they can't still love each other somewhere inside. It is a sad thing that conflicts of interest and communication problems destroy relationships when the potential for love would have remained if the circumstances permitted it to.

NeonKaos

07-29-2011, 12:57 AM

Just because two people can't interact constructively in a relationship anymore doesn't mean they can't still love each other somewhere inside. It is a sad thing that conflicts of interest and communication problems destroy relationships when the potential for love would have remained if the circumstances permitted it to.

This is true. Relationships can become befouled by poor communication. This doesn't change the fact that just because people were in a relationship together, it doesn't mean they must love each other at all, let alone forever.

You seem to like to create cause-and-effect relationships between intellectual concepts where they do not exist. It's like saying, "the ground is wet, therefore it must be raining". We are in complete agreement that the ground is indeed wet, but we don't know if it was because of rain, if someone peed on it, if someone used a garden hose, or if it rained then someone peed and then someone else used a garden hose to wash off the pee...

I mean, you're almost able to have a coherent discussion, but frankly, you do not make much sense and I have this mental image of you sitting there with a dictionary, thesaurus, and a bible, opening each one to a random page and pointing at some words, and coming on here and using that as a sort of John Cage performance-art score. There is already a Word Association Game thread. You should go play that.

serialmonogamist

07-29-2011, 02:34 AM

I mean, you're almost able to have a coherent discussion, but frankly, you do not make much sense and I have this mental image of you sitting there with a dictionary, thesaurus, and a bible, opening each one to a random page and pointing at some words, and coming on here and using that as a sort of John Cage performance-art score. There is already a Word Association Game thread. You should go play that.
Ouch! Yes, I philosophize. I am not lost in conceptual abstractions though. What you should realize is that everyday people who think of themselves as very practical and down-to-earth are filtering their reality through language and status. I'm trying to break through that. Don't cling to sub-critical language usage and blame people who are trying to raise consciousness about the gap between language and reality. Also, don't fear dictionaries, thesauri, and bibles, and other theological/philosophical writings. They can all be helpful in the journey to understand existence.

Tonberry

07-29-2011, 08:27 AM

nycindie

07-29-2011, 09:25 AM

. . . when monogamous people enter into a relationship, it is often with the hope that "this is the one," meaning they don't intend to break up.Not necessarily. They just enter the relationship knowing they will only be involved with and devote their attention to only one person. Most people have the intelligence not to assume that whatever relationship they enter will last indefinitely. Not every mono "hopes they've found The One" right from the beginning of a relationship. Yes, even mono people enjoy dating without having any expectation for a commitment that it will last a lifetime. Length of time or seriousness of commitment are not automatic hallmarks of monogamous relationships. Monogamous relationships simply mean that there are only two people involved.

GroundedSpirit

07-29-2011, 02:08 PM

Whoa !

Who created this thread - and why ????

GS

NeonKaos

07-29-2011, 02:14 PM

One of the moderators must have split it off the other thread. It wasnt me though. I dont think it was necessary to split it because the original thread was the same, AND it was started by SM. So it isn't like SM hijacked the thread...

I think i'll go ahead and merge them back together.

GroundedSpirit

07-29-2011, 03:35 PM

I think i'll go ahead and merge them back together.
Good call Neon !

serialmonogamist

07-29-2011, 07:09 PM

If there is a car or something that says it's a one-person car (bear with me) it doesn't mean that once someone has used it nobody else can. It means it can accomodate one person at a time. It's a "serial one-person car", sure, but people just shorten it to "one-person car" because being for one person and one person only, forever, is not a normal feature, and you specify what's not the norm, not what is the norm.
And it certainly doesn't become a "multi-passenger" vehicle because it can accomodate more than one person (but not at the same time).

If you look at your relationships with people like turns driving a car, that's your business but a car doesn't have emotions, memories, or a desire to prove it's status as a one-person car or multi-passenger car.

I'm sorry but I stand by my perspective that serial monogamy is a form of polygamy. I don't think that relationships end just because people want them to be over. I think people goad each other into letting go until they agree to and then ignore the fact that the other person was goaded. People just want to control their exes to avoid things like stalking so they have to continuously insist that "it's over." Nowhere is there a law of the universe that says that when you want to stop seeing your partner, they will stop wanting to see you or that when you do both stop seeing each other, you'll stop loving or missing each other. Even when people do stop loving and missing each other, it could just be because the pain of doing so is something they don't wish to continue bearing.

Honestly, I don't think the pain of a lost relationship goes away. I think you just get so used to your heart being broken that you are desensitized to it and thus move on out of boredom. This is why people can go years without wanting a past relationship back and suddenly have something trigger the desire for that person. They repress the relationship believing that it's over only to discover later that it wasn't. You can say that there's a difference between it truly being over and just believing that it's over, but there's ultimately no real difference, imo. In both cases, you just suppress the feelings you once had for your partner to a level where it feels "over" and the question is whether those suppressed feelings will ever resurface or not. You could have been completely abused, etc. and it would still be possible for you to one day remember the good things about the person that you once loved about them, miss them, and want them back. Obviously most people who broke from an abusive relationship vehemently eschew the prospect of wanting their abuser back, but that is just them maintaining a memory of the abuse to generate sufficient fear/anger to prompt continuing avoidance. I know from personal experience that given enough motivation to return to a previous relationship, people do it and often re-invigorate the same old dysfunctional relationship patterns. That could be viewed as an opportunity to resolve what was never resolved, but it is rarely viewed that way because of a dominant culture of avoidance, especially where abuse is concerned. I know of almost no one who advocates reconciliation with an abusive partner. It is a culture of unforgiveness and irreconcilability.

NeonKaos

07-29-2011, 07:22 PM

Missing someone and wishing they hadn't dumped you is not the same thing as a polyamorous relationship.

It sounds like you've been dumped a lot. Has anyone ever had to take out a restraining order against you for stalking and/or harassment? Because your last post sounds rather creepy, and if one of my exes talked like that, i'd seriously think about adopting a large canine beast to keep me company.

serialmonogamist

07-29-2011, 07:46 PM

Missing someone and wishing they hadn't dumped you is not the same thing as a polyamorous relationship.
Do you see how you are pushing in the direction of exclusive definitions? Do you notice how the will to exclusion is strong in relationship culture generally as a result of a long history of monogamous tradition?

It sounds like you've been dumped a lot. Has anyone ever had to take out a restraining order against you for stalking and/or harassment? Because your last post sounds rather creepy, and if one of my exes talked like that, i'd seriously think about adopting a large canine beast to keep me company.
Here's the general cultural tactic you're expressing here: First you challenge me to distance myself from the status of "loser," i.e. "someone who has been dumped a lot." Then, you suggest that if I wouldn't accept the exclusion that makes me a "loser," I'm creepy, a stalker, harasser, etc. Then you suggest the idea of using an attack dog to enforce my physical exclusion.

I find what you're saying very mean in general to people who are subject to exclusionary attacks from other people. I usually respond to exclusion with reverse-exclusion because it's the only way to avoid the hater attempting to use any level of violence possible to make you go away. Ideally you would be able to love someone until they forgave you for whatever it is they hate you for, but as I said in some thread (maybe not this one), there is a culture of unforgiveness and irreconciliation. Some people don't want to replace exclusion with love. They just want to set boundaries and dominate other people with them.

nycindie

07-29-2011, 07:51 PM

I don't think that relationships end just because people want them to be over. I think people goad each other into letting go until they agree to and then ignore the fact that the other person was goaded. . . . Honestly, I don't think the pain of a lost relationship goes away.

I have had several relationships that ended mutually and joyfully, which I look back on knowing that the relationship served its purpose in our lives and enriched us both for a definite period of time. Not every relationship ends painfully. You keep thinking that your experiences apply to everyone. Sorry you're in pain, but they don't.

And you are WRONG - serial monogamy is not polyamory. Poly is simultaneous multiple relationships - end of story. Get that through your head.

NeonKaos

07-29-2011, 08:37 PM

I find what you're saying very mean in general to people who are subject to exclusionary attacks from other people. I usually respond to exclusion with reverse-exclusion because it's the only way to avoid the hater attempting to use any level of violence possible to make you go away. Ideally you would be able to love someone until they forgave you for whatever it is they hate you for, but as I said in some thread (maybe not this one), there is a culture of unforgiveness and irreconciliation. Some people don't want to replace exclusion with love. They just want to set boundaries and dominate other people with them.

And i find what you are saying creepy and stalkerish precisely because it indicates a lack of respect for other people's boundaries.

Tonberry

07-29-2011, 08:52 PM

If it's just about people trying to avoid one another, then is it monogamy if your partner dies? Or do you need to stay in love with their memory and never date anyone else?

Yes, when you have a history, it's there forever. But the idea that monogamy would mean that once you have a date with someone you can't consider anyone else ever is so reducing that it doesn't qualify anything as monogamy. Even people who have only one long term partners have crushes when growing up, don't they?

EDIT: oh, and no, relationships aren't like cars. That's why it's an analogy. I'm trying to explain that "one at a time" is often shortened to "one" and that's why serial monogamy is shortened as monogamy and not polyamory. Especially since you can also have serial polyamory and it's a different thing.

NeonKaos

07-29-2011, 10:31 PM

Especially since you can also have serial polyamory and it's a different thing.

That's right; poly relationships can end too.

I have another analogy. If I'm fired from my job, and I decide that I still have a "relationship" with my erstwhile employer, um... That makes me DELUSIONAL, not "polylaborist" or a "serial monoergonomist".

The thing is, I know the difference between the reality that I share with the rest of the world and the reality that exists only inside of my mind. Unfortunately, not everyone does.

serialmonogamist

07-29-2011, 10:43 PM

And i find what you are saying creepy and stalkerish precisely because it indicates a lack of respect for other people's boundaries.
Aren't you failing to respect my boundaries when you call me 'creepy' and 'stalkerish' or is that not a boundary I'm allowed to have?

Look, I tried to explain to you what I meant and you are just turning it into a boundary-respect domination game. Not everyone wants to worship a culture of total boundary-submission. Why do people who subscribe to that culture wish to push it on everyone else?

serialmonogamist

07-29-2011, 10:48 PM

I have another analogy. If I'm fired from my job, and I decide that I still have a "relationship" with my erstwhile employer, um... That makes me DELUSIONAL, not "polylaborist" or a "serial monoergonomist".
I think you could call someone who does more than one kind of work "polylaborist." I usually just use the term, "generalist," though. It's not delusional to say you maintain a relationship with previous employers by having them on your resume'. It is a way of showing that your work history with them makes you part of what you are.

The thing is, I know the difference between the reality that I share with the rest of the world and the reality that exists only inside of my mind. Unfortunately, not everyone does.
Hopefully, you share the reality that people have diverse and multiple ways of looking at things and that you shouldn't dismiss some people's views as "deviating from reality."

nycindie

07-29-2011, 10:53 PM

This has become more than tiresome.

NeonKaos

07-29-2011, 11:11 PM

Aren't you failing to respect my boundaries when you call me 'creepy' and 'stalkerish' or is that not a boundary I'm allowed to have?

Nope. I said I found WHAT YOU ARE SAYING to be creepy and stalkerish. I have made a point to restrict my comments to WHAT YOU SAY and HOW IT COMES ACROSS. Your comments come across as creepy and stalkerish.

Furthermore, if you don't believe in boundaries, don't turn around and say you aren't having yours respected because that is an example of hypocrisy.

But I do admit that I don't have much respect for you because of the way you have presented yourself here.

serialmonogamist

07-29-2011, 11:32 PM

This has become more than tiresome.
I agree but for some reason NeonKaos keeps challenging me to defend myself and I keep responding. I actually hate it when this happens. It's stereotypical masculine stubbornness, imo, and it's so difficult to de-escalate for some reason.

Nope. I said I found WHAT YOU ARE SAYING to be creepy and stalkerish. I have made a point to restrict my comments to WHAT YOU SAY and HOW IT COMES ACROSS. Your comments come across as creepy and stalkerish.
So if I get insulted by what you say, that is not you crossing my boundaries? I guess I just get confused by the whole philosophy of respecting boundaries. When is that I get to choose my own boundaries and have you respect them, when other people agree that my boundaries are worthy of respect?

Furthermore, if you don't believe in boundaries, don't turn around and say you aren't having yours respected because that is an example of hypocrisy.
I didn't say I don't believe in it. I said people take it very far, as you are doing now. They expect total submission to all boundary-setting and they attack anyone who doesn't respect any boundary set by anyone as some kind of terrorist. I think you should realize that boundary-setting can also be done very aggressively, as you have been doing to me in this thread.

But I do admit that I don't have much respect for you because of the way you have presented yourself here.
What gives you the right to disrespect me?

nycindie

07-29-2011, 11:35 PM

What gives you the right to disrespect me?No holding much respect for you is not the same as disrespecting you.

NeonKaos

07-29-2011, 11:39 PM

Serial Monogamist, your remarks make very little sense. If I responded to them point by point, I would sound as ridiculous as you do.

serialmonogamist

07-29-2011, 11:42 PM

No holding much respect for you is not the same as disrespecting you.

Couldn't he respect be by just saying he disagrees and leaving it instead of attacking and ridiculing me? I don't care how he feels about me. I just don't appreciate his mean attitude.

NeonKaos

07-30-2011, 12:30 AM

Couldn't he respect be by just saying he disagrees and leaving it instead of attacking and ridiculing me? I don't care how he feels about me. I just don't appreciate his mean attitude.

Who are you talking about?

serialmonogamist

07-30-2011, 04:32 AM

Who are you talking about?

you.

NeonKaos

07-30-2011, 04:35 AM

Oh. I thought you said "he".

serialmonogamist

07-30-2011, 04:36 AM

Oh. I thought you said "he".

Look at my sexism! I must have assumed you were a he because you were being so mean. Maybe I found your avatar or username masculine. Nothing personal - apologies. Long live gender ambiguity!

NeonKaos

07-30-2011, 04:44 AM

serialmonogamist

07-30-2011, 04:58 AM

All you would have to do is look at my profile, where it says "female". But it doesn't surprise me that you missed the forest for the trees. If you'd guessed correctly as to my sex, I'm sure you'd have pulled out some absurd female stereotype and explained why I must have said what I'd said because of that.

Face it. You're not right. You're WRONG.

(I just saw someone else say this in another thread and it was AWESOME so I decided to use it here because it's AWESOME)

Why would you expect I'd use a female stereotype against you after I just posted "long live gender ambiguity?" I love that you defy stereotyping but your masculinity (if I may call it that) is harsh. I don't mind you having a solid opinion that I'm wrong, but arguing your point with CAPITALS? Come on! I'm actually glad I didn't look up your profile to gender you because it makes my impressions a little more objective. The unfortunate part is that our gender roles aren't reversed b/c I would love it if you'd go just a little softer on "poor little me."

Magdlyn

07-30-2011, 05:04 AM

Face it. You're not right. You're WRONG.

(I just saw someone else say this in another thread and it was AWESOME so I decided to use it here because it's AWESOME)

Hey, that was me, wasn't it? :D

nycindie

07-30-2011, 05:29 AM

That's okay - this thread has been impossible to follow from the beginning, LOL.

Magdlyn

07-30-2011, 05:34 AM

I was so confused. You said serial was WRONG (but I didnt see it at first because I am kind of reading this thread backwards), and I said a husband's behavior was WRONG on another thread. And then I thought Neon was referring to your words, but then looked at the other thread where she congratulated me on my rhetoric! lol

Why aren't I asleep?

NeonKaos

07-30-2011, 02:23 PM

Magdlyn

07-30-2011, 03:03 PM

NeonKaos

07-30-2011, 03:12 PM

Recently a guy I met on okc, who wanted me to help him cheat on his gf, called me "surprisingly close-minded."

That's one of my favorite pet-peeves of all time. One time, this guy decided I was "uptight" because I didn't recognize the jeenyis artwork he's created, which had something to do with aliens and vaginas. Later, it was really hot (after midnight) and I took off my shirt. Bohemian-arteest guy walks in and says to me "Oh neon! I guess you're not as uptight as I thought you were after all".

That's right. I'm here to prove to the world (especially random guys from the internet) how not-uptight I am. That's why I take off my shirt sometimes. A-yup.

serialmonogamist

07-30-2011, 03:14 PM

I've been burnt enough to know where my boundaries lie. Recently a guy I met on okc, who wanted me to help him cheat on his gf, called me "surprisingly close-minded." "Well, I'm an ethical slut," I told him. Being poly is great, but you really need to have standards, or everyone loses.
That book has been on top of my reading list for years yet I still haven't read it. You make a good point about boundaries, one I forget because so many people seem to use boundaries as part of their power to manipulate others. When you have experience that tells you how far you can take something without getting hurt, those boundaries are the ones that keep you safe and sane.

Did that guy want to cheat on his gf to hurt her or just for the kick? Do you think there's an ethical way to explore the allure of cheating? I once joked to a former partner that relationships are just a way of building up the allure of cheating. It's a race, actually, because whoever cheats first brings all the self-confidence of the relationship into the affair while the person whose heart gets broken loses the same self-confidence. It's almost like a roulette wheel where both partners put their money on the table and whoever's number comes up first gets all the money and the other one loses all theirs. This is awfully unethical, imo, but I wonder if there isn't some way to recognize cheating as just another part of human sexuality and figure out (relatively) ethical ways of exploring it.

NeonKaos

07-30-2011, 03:16 PM

recognize cheating as just another part of human sexuality and figure out (relatively) ethical ways of exploring it.

Well, I've been trying to recognize stealing as just another part of human survival, and I've found some pretty ethical ways of exploring that. Like when someone else has something that I need, I wait until they're not looking, then I just you know, take it with me.

Magdlyn

07-30-2011, 03:31 PM

Once I was in a museum shop with my baby son and I gave him a quartz crystal keychain to hold while we were there, from a rack. After we left the shop and had walked a couple blocks, I saw the keychain on top of my diaper bag where he'd dropped it. I didnt go back and return it! Using your kids to steal things is quite ethical. :cool:

No, in other words, serial, there is no ethical way to "explore the 'allure' of cheating." Get a grip, man.

serialmonogamist

07-30-2011, 03:41 PM

Well, I've been trying to recognize stealing as just another part of human survival, and I've found some pretty ethical ways of exploring that. Like when someone else has something that I need, I wait until they're not looking, then I just you know, take it with me.

Once I was in a museum shop with my baby son and I gave him a quartz crystal keychain to hold while we were there, from a rack. After we left the shop and had walked a couple blocks, I saw the keychain on top of my diaper bag where he'd dropped it. I didnt go back and return it! Using your kids to steal things is quite ethical. :cool:

No, in other words, serial, there is no ethical way to "explore the 'allure' of cheating." Get a grip, man.

What if couples voluntarily enrolled in an anonymous cheating club and had some kind proof of membership (like a quartz crystal keychain)? To get into the club, couples would have to have a consultation meeting where both/all partners expressed consent for the prospective 'cheating.' Really, it would just be having open relationships without express knowledge/consent prior to engaging in affair activities. Yet you would know that everyone involved had consented to what was going on.

Magdlyn, what's with the mean tone? I wouldn't actually pursue these things. I just like speculating about them and considering the possibilities and consequences. For goodness sake, I feel like I'd be cheating if I went too far on a date even though I'm single!

Tonberry

07-30-2011, 03:45 PM

The point with cheating is that it's done without consent or knowledge. What you're suggesting isn't cheating. That's the reason why it's ethical.

NeonKaos

07-30-2011, 03:47 PM

What if couples voluntarily enrolled in an anonymous cheating club and had some kind proof of membership (like a quartz crystal keychain)? To get into the club, couples would have to have a consultation meeting where both/all partners expressed consent for the prospective 'cheating.' Really, it would just be having open relationships without express knowledge/consent prior to engaging in affair activities. Yet you would know that everyone involved had consented to what was going on.

That's an open relationship. It isn't "cheating" if both/all parties give express knowledge/consent.

You didn't invent any of this, SM. Nothing you are suggesting is new.

serialmonogamist

07-30-2011, 03:57 PM

That's an open relationship. It isn't "cheating" if both/all parties give express knowledge/consent.

You didn't invent any of this, SM. Nothing you are suggesting is new.

Why does everything have to be said to me in a mean tone? Did someone put a "talk mean to me" sticker on my profile or something?

So does having an open relationship preclude the possibility of any activities being construed as "cheating?" I thought open relationships involved express prior consent to each affair?

So what is cheating, then? Identifying your partner's boundaries and crossing them? All I mean is if there's a way to experience "the greener grass" without hurting anyone's feelings. Since for some reason the phenomenon of the grass appearing greener seems to be a universal, you would think there would be some way to act on the desire for it without hurting someone else, no?

nycindie

07-30-2011, 09:11 PM

How about you learn to discuss the content of what I say . . .You seem to be overlooking the fact that no one else who has contributed to this thread can make any sense out of what you write. So how the hell can we discuss the content when it's ridiculously incomprehensible?

I really welcome critical discussion. I would just rather you or anyone else argue their thoughts reasonably . . .Maybe when you have something reasonable to argue for or against, that could hapen.

Magdlyn

07-30-2011, 09:22 PM

http://blog.sonicseo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/internet-troll.jpg
*

nycindie

07-30-2011, 09:33 PM

lol

serialmonogamist

07-30-2011, 10:19 PM

You seem to be overlooking the fact that no one else who has contributed to this thread can make any sense out of what you write. So how the hell can we discuss the content when it's ridiculously incomprehensible?

Maybe when you have something reasonable to argue for or against, that could hapen.
I was really hoping poly people who are over the taboos of feeling multiple attractions would be open to understanding me and discussing these thoughts and feelings. Somehow I've only irritated people, though. Thanks anyway for trying.

nycindie

07-31-2011, 12:58 AM

serialmonogamist

07-31-2011, 01:43 AM

Okay, here's an article you might find interesting. It was written by a member here, Irena, on her blog:

Shades of Past Lovers: or, what I learned from my wacko fundamentalist past. (https://irenarowley.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/shades-of-past-lovers-or-what-i-learned-from-my-wacko-fundamentalist-past/)
Thanks, NYCindie. Finally I feel validated in my belief that serial monogamy is far from absolute monogamy. That blog really described the fairy tale of absolute monogamy well, didn't it? And what's so ironic to me is that while so many serial monogamists believe that they've achieved the fairy tale for the duration of their current relationship, they can only do so by vehemently denying the wider reality of their lives, that relationships are always ultimately terminal as far as their experience can tell them.

This is how I feel after divorce from someone I really thought would be the only one for the rest of my life. Now I wonder how I could ever pretend to believe the fairy tale again after living the reality that marriages end. But then when I start to explore the idea of polyamory (just the idea because I'm nowhere near comfortable with experimenting with it in practice), my mono friends act like I'm jumping off the deep end of insanity. Then when I explain to them why I think that serial monogamy is a form of non-simultaneous polyamory, they don't know what to say. Then when I discuss the topic with polyamorists online, they only respond by insisting that serial monogamy is just the normal form of monogamy and not polyamory. How to reach the truth?

nycindie

07-31-2011, 02:04 AM

serialmonogamist

07-31-2011, 03:17 AM

Wha-a-a-a???

You miss the point. She is saying the serial monogamy is what monogamy is and "absolute monogamy" -- the idea that you can only be with one person all your life -- is a myth, foolish to believe in, and completely impossible to achieve. I provided this link and you don't get it at all. It seems like you are deluded.

And how many times are you going to repeat your absolutely nonsensical notion that there is even such a thing as "non-simultaneous polyamory?" I am seriously wondering about your sanity now.
The only difference between your view and mine is that I don't convolute the ideal concepts with the reality. I also see absolute monogamy as a practically unachievable fairy tale. Only I think that doesn't matter because ideals have a life of their own and the ideal of absolute monogamy plays a giant role in the way serial monogamists orient toward their relationships. My point is that serial monogamy is still enamored with the dream of absolute monogamy on some level. I don't think you can appreciate what I'm saying because you are so focussed on serial monogamy being more 'realistic' than absolute monogamy.

Ideals are ideals. They exist separately from reality. Serial monogamy is a dominant reality caught somewhere between the ideal of absolute monogamy and the reality of polyamory. Imo, it is dishonest not to come to terms with the reality that monogamy is an ideal that is simply unachievable for most people. We strive for it. We worship its facade and demonize those whose polyamory shows up on the radar instead of escaping the light. In reality, I don't know of anyone who achieves absolute monogamy so why do we chastise people for compromising the facade and moving in the direction of polyamory in the various illicit ways that they do? We challenge people to monogamy and whip them for failing while telling them that if they choose honest polyamory they're sluts.

Still, the ideal of absolute monogamy remains and I am desperate to experience the magic that it promises. Only my divorce robbed me of that opportunity. So now where? Will the ideal of lifelong monogamy dissolve in my mind like an unfertilized ovum or does it have some function in the grand scheme of life after divorce?

I hope you can now see that reality is more complex than rejecting the impracticality of the absolute-monogamy dream. Replacing it with serial monogamy is a cheap surrogate. The reality is more complex. I understand you resent the false promise of it but please don't chastise me for looking back and questioning why the ideal exists in the first place and what its place in reality is.

nycindie

07-31-2011, 03:44 AM

This is such condescending drivel. You must be a troll after all.

serialmonogamist

07-31-2011, 04:03 AM

This is such condescending drivel. You must be a troll after all.

What is condescending and what is drivel? Do you really think I could write all that just for trolling purposes? Can you or someone please explain to me why I'm getting so much rejection for my thoughts on feelings and relationships? Is there something that people are expecting me to conform to that I'm not?

ihaveasecret

07-31-2011, 05:47 AM

Maybe it has to do with how you're coming across. It seems like you're trying to enlighten everyone with your viewpoint and you have stubbornly refused to accept any objections to your ideas. You haven't really been discussing anything, you've been lecturing.

NeonKaos

07-31-2011, 05:51 AM

Tonberry

07-31-2011, 07:16 AM

I was really hoping poly people who are over the taboos of feeling multiple attractions would be open to understanding me and discussing these thoughts and feelings.

I think that's your problem here. You're talking about something that's the norm and expecting people outside the norm to sympathise with you and be understanding and stuff. It's like a straight person going to a gay support group and saying "I had a dream that I kissed a same sex person, I'm like you guys".
That just annoys people because it feels like you're trying to be special when you're just like most people. So it's like, why don't you discuss it with anyone else, who is just like you unless they happen to be in the minority? Why is it even worth bringing up? I've never felt I had to talk to gay people about the struggle of being straight but not "absolute straight" that is disgusted by the same sex and never has same-sex dreams ever, or with black people about being a white person but not "absolute white" with no minority whatsoever in my ancestors, ever.

People are upset because after managing to decode what you meant, we've realised it is "I'm a normal person! Woe is me! Can I use the words you guy use, too? I don't want to use the same word as everybody else. I want people to think I'm special."
That's what's annoying to us. To me at least. You're perfectly allowed to be mono and aren't the only one on this forum. And there are struggles that go with being mono, I'm sure, especially in a relationship with a poly. But here you're going around saying you're poly because you aren't that thing you yourself state doesn't exist. So what's your point then? Instead of figuring that people use that word for what is the norm, must you decide it means something else, which is so rare it is some sort of oddity? Haven't you thought that the reaosn there isn't a simpler word for it that the phrase "lifelong monogamy" is that it's not happening often enough to deserve its own word, and that "lifelong monogamy" is self-explanatory specifically because everyone knows what monogamy is, and can imagine the concept of it being over your whole life rather than at one time?

ihaveasecret

07-31-2011, 07:42 AM

Yes, it would seem that you would be more comfortable posting on a regular relationship message board for monogamous people.

I am new to poly and even I know that it is totally incorrect to say there is a type of polyamory that is simply thinking about past relationships. You're monogamous, and quite conventionally so, but for some reason want to claim you are poly. Yet, all your reasoning for doing that has been challenged and refuted by real poly people, so obviously you are incorrect in your vision and probably will never feel any sort of satisfaction from posting here. And everyone here will wonder if you're just trying to be irritating. Can't you see that?

Magdlyn

07-31-2011, 01:59 PM

serialmonogamist

07-31-2011, 04:42 PM

Ohhh wow, I think I finally get the problem serial seems to be having.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are saying you were taught that lifetime monogamy is the ideal. One love interest your whole life. No gfs, no flirting, saving all your heart and body for marriage, as in the article Cindie shared.

So, you got married, but it failed. Now you are divorced, and yet you still feel like having a new love interest is cheating on your ex-wife. So much so, you think you're polyamorous!

But, you aren't. Not even close.

I think that's your problem here. You're talking about something that's the norm and expecting people outside the norm to sympathise with you and be understanding and stuff. It's like a straight person going to a gay support group and saying "I had a dream that I kissed a same sex person, I'm like you guys".
That just annoys people because it feels like you're trying to be special when you're just like most people. So it's like, why don't you discuss it with anyone else, who is just like you unless they happen to be in the minority? Why is it even worth bringing up? I've never felt I had to talk to gay people about the struggle of being straight but not "absolute straight" that is disgusted by the same sex and never has same-sex dreams ever, or with black people about being a white person but not "absolute white" with no minority whatsoever in my ancestors, ever.

People are upset because after managing to decode what you meant, we've realised it is "I'm a normal person! Woe is me! Can I use the words you guy use, too? I don't want to use the same word as everybody else. I want people to think I'm special."
That's what's annoying to us. To me at least. You're perfectly allowed to be mono and aren't the only one on this forum. And there are struggles that go with being mono, I'm sure, especially in a relationship with a poly. But here you're going around saying you're poly because you aren't that thing you yourself state doesn't exist. So what's your point then? Instead of figuring that people use that word for what is the norm, must you decide it means something else, which is so rare it is some sort of oddity? Haven't you thought that the reaosn there isn't a simpler word for it that the phrase "lifelong monogamy" is that it's not happening often enough to deserve its own word, and that "lifelong monogamy" is self-explanatory specifically because everyone knows what monogamy is, and can imagine the concept of it being over your whole life rather than at one time?

Ok, I'm finally starting to get why people are so irritated with me. You think I'm trying to claim "polyamory" as an ego/status trip to make myself more unique than just being an average (serial) monogamist. This is not my point. Feel free to call me a (serial) monogamist - I did choose it as my username after all. Also, I'm not arguing that serial monogamy is a form of polyamory because I'm trying to unite polyamorists with serial monogamists in some kind of social-political way. What I am doing is trying to show that I think many if not most serial monogamists have the capacity or potential of polyamory and that maybe a lot of the pain involved with achieving semi-monogamy is due to so-called monogamists pursuing an ideal out of social-conformity instead of a deep-hearted faith in monogamy as having some true benefits.

My issue personally is not so much how to be mono or poly. At this point I'm starting to become interested in the possibility of sustainable celibacy since this seems to fit best with my obsession with the ideal of absolute monogamy after divorce. However, I notice that being without a relationship doesn't make me desire having one less but more, so I think I may actually be becoming more poly-oriented by rejecting relationships, idk. Please don't attack me for being like a straight person who goes to a gay support group to talk about having gay dreams - not that I really see the problem with that. My personal issue has more to do with how to become more celibate without denying the facts of feelings and desires. Maybe I should seek out a celibacy support group but I think it is unlikely users will want to talk about polyamory and the tension between absolute and serial monogamy.

Could someone please honestly tell me if I'm going to be hated in this forum until I choose to either pursue poly relationships or go away? Or can I be celibate and post-monogamous and discuss social-philosophy in a general way? And REALLY I'm not trying to bolster my ego by claiming status, except maybe the status of devoted monogamist, which still appeals to me for some reason.

btw, thanks to everyone who made the effort to explain the negative attitudes I've been getting. It was really nice to actually understand what was behind it instead of guessing.

nycindie

07-31-2011, 06:46 PM

. . . I'm not arguing that serial monogamy is a form of polyamory because I'm trying to unite polyamorists with serial monogamists in some kind of social-political way. What I am doing is trying to show that I think many if not most serial monogamists have the capacity or potential of polyamory and that maybe a lot of the pain involved with achieving semi-monogamy is due to so-called monogamists pursuing an ideal out of social-conformity instead of a deep-hearted faith in monogamy as having some true benefits.

A big problem with what you write is that you seem to think your experiences and feelings automatically apply de facto to everyone else. Plenty of people are happily monogamous and do not struggle with it, but you keep saying that there is pain and suffering with trying to achieve monogamy as if it is a given. When all you are talking about are natural attractions that occur in life and/or thinking about past relationships! Oh, how you suffer!

Furthermore, that you are "trying to show" how monogamists have the capacity or potential to be polyamorous is preaching to the choir, dude! Most people here have also been influenced by the larger societal dictates that monogamy is the expected norm and most of us here are in, dealing with, or curious about polyamorous relationships, so what are you trying to prove? You seem to think you've reached this epiphany you want to share, and it comes off as quite condescending to try and show a community of polyamorists (and their supporters) the light.

If you came here asking questions about how to find or manage one or multiple relationships, you would undoubtedly have been met with many helpful words of advice. However, you only came here to pontificate to a crowd that doesn't need convincing. Furthermore, we have told you that you are taking an incorrect view of what polyamory is and you still insist on asserting it. No, you won't be hated here, but people are going to keep giving you shit as long as you stay on this track because it comes off as arrogant.

NeonKaos

07-31-2011, 07:23 PM

You seem to think you've reached this epiphany you want to share, and it comes off as quite condescending to try and show a community of polyamorists (and their supporters) the light.

If you came here asking questions about how to find or manage one or multiple relationships, you would undoubtedly have been met with many helpful words of advice. However, you only came here to pontificate to a crowd that doesn't need convincing.

I found Jesus!
Jesus was there the whole time!

serialmonogamist

07-31-2011, 07:38 PM

A big problem with what you write is that you seem to think your experiences and feelings automatically apply de facto to everyone else. Plenty of people are happily monogamous and do not struggle with it, but you keep saying that there is pain and suffering with trying to achieve monogamy as if it is a given. When all you are talking about is natural attractions that occur in life and/or thinking about past relationships! Oh, how you suffer!
No offense, but why do you and others here seem to think discussing things is all about self-aggrandizement? I don't worship pain and suffering. I do, however, want to explore the causes of it and discuss ways of alleviating/reducing it.

You say that some people live unproblematic mono lives but I don't believe that. You seem to think that there are radically different types of people instead of acknowledging that humans are basically universally the same only there are different cultures to filter the natural drives through. This could be a broader philosophical discussion but, without having it you can still avoid attacking me for my universalism.

The reason I'm specifically talking about suffering involved with achieving monogamy is that I don't think divorces would occur if people were truly absolute monogamists. Why would you leave your partner if you knew you had no capacity to fall in love again or establish a relationship with someone else? Wouldn't people just communicate and work out their differences if the only other choice was to be eternally separated from your only true love?

Furthermore, that you are "trying to show" how monogamists have the capacity or potential to be polyamorous is preaching to the choir, dude! Most people here have also been influenced by the larger societal dictates that monogamy is the expected norm and most of us here are in, dealing with, or curious about polyamorous relationships, so what are you trying to prove? You seem to think you've reached this epiphany you want to share, and it comes off as quite condescending to try and show a community of polyamorists (and their supporters) the light.
I'm not trying to prove anything or worship my epiphany, though it was an epiphany for me, yes, as I'm sure it was for others here. I just sought a forum of people who have experienced the same epiphany and want to discuss it further. What's the problem with that? Maybe my tone comes across as preachy because I'm an academic. It's not meant to be rude. It's just my writing style, I think. One thing I really dislike in any situation, though, is to be harassed for being assertive, as if I have to behave submissively toward other people not to be rude. I believe in horizontal equality, so I don't expect submission from others or expect them to want/expect it from me.

If you came here asking questions about how to find or manage one or multiple relationships, you would undoubtedly have been met with many helpful words of advice. However, you only came here to pontificate to a crowd that doesn't need convincing. Furthermore, we have told you that you are taking an incorrect view of what polyamory is and you still insist on asserting it. No, you won't be hated here, but people are going to keep giving you shit as long as you stay on this track because it comes off as arrogant.
Sorry if I come off as arrogant. I guess I'm just here to discuss various relationship and love issues but with people who have broader experience because they have managed multiple simultaneous relationships. More than anything I'm trying to understand people and how they relate to each other. I would also like to discuss people's negative experiences with monogamy because I want to gain more clarity about the theory and practical realities of monogamy in my own beliefs. I guess I could find a forum about monogamy for this, but do people really go online to discuss monogamy from a wider perspective on relationships that includes polyamory? I don't think they do. Anyway, thanks for not being totally dismissive and maybe I'll come off less arrogant in the future (hopefully, though I am assertive about things I feel I know).

NeonKaos

07-31-2011, 07:51 PM

serialmonogamist

07-31-2011, 07:57 PM

There's plenty to read on the forum about people's negative experiences with monogamy AND their negative experiences with polyamory. Why not go ahead and search around the forum and jump in on some of the already-existing discussions and real-life chronologs to add your perspectives and insights with a context, instead of making generalizations about abstract concepts that make very little sense to you AND everyone else.

Because so far, you come across as if you like to hear yourself talk more than you actually care that what you're saying is valid or relevant.
You come across as if you want to push me into some kind of subordinate position. As I said in the last post, I don't like it when people expect me to behave submissively to "fit in." I don't just like hearing myself talk. I am interested in others' opinions, otherwise why would I bother with a discussion forum? I also do search around the forum and read other discussions, although I don't post in every thread just because I read it. I'm really not as arrogant as I seem to come across. I think it's just my tone. Do you or others here have a problem with people who aren't constantly submissive and apologetic in their tone?

NeonKaos

07-31-2011, 07:59 PM

You come across as if you want to push me into some kind of subordinate position. As I said in the last post, I don't like it when people expect me to behave submissively to "fit in." I don't just like hearing myself talk. I am interested in others' opinions, otherwise why would I bother with a discussion forum? I also do search around the forum and read other discussions, although I don't post in every thread just because I read it. I'm really not as arrogant as I seem to come across. I think it's just my tone. Do you or others here have a problem with people who aren't constantly submissive and apologetic in their tone?

This is not necessary. I was very polite to you in my last post. I was trying to help you out. If you can't move forward and act like an adult, I'll bend over and you can kiss my sweet ass.

Get over it. Get over yourself.

nycindie

07-31-2011, 08:01 PM

Magdlyn

07-31-2011, 08:09 PM

Jesus Christ on a breadstick, man.

Just because Neon suggested you read more and talk less, doesn't mean she wants you to be submissive. Being humble and learning from others who are more experienced than you does not equal submission, just attractive humbleness. Cindie and I are 15-20 years older than you; learn from your elders (if not betters).

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. If you are an academic, you understand research, I hope. Read and learn, young padawan. Help you, we will. Don't preach to the choir, don't try and teach your teachers.

If you're mono, fine. If you think you need to be celibate because you lost your One True Love, fine. Just don't stupidly and arrogantly try and teach us what we already know, and try and skew our language to force your twisted agenda onto us. That's all we ask. We don't hate you. You're just damn annoying.

NeonKaos

07-31-2011, 08:26 PM

Jesus Christ on a breadstick, man.

Just because Neon suggested you read more and talk less, doesn't mean she wants you to be submissive. Being humble and learning from others who are more experienced than you does not equal submission, just attractive humbleness. Cindie and I are 15-20 years older than you; learn from your elders (if not betters).

I didn't even mean that he should talk LESS, I just meant that he might get more out of it if he talked about it in CONTEXT. It might be more productive to discuss it within the context of someone's REAL LIFE, instead of making statements about "most people" and "some people" and "people in general".

Magdlyn

07-31-2011, 08:29 PM

Thanks for clarifying, Neon.

NeonKaos

07-31-2011, 08:31 PM

I wouldn't MIND if he talked "less", but it's not really an issue.

nycindie

07-31-2011, 08:41 PM

Yeah, relationships are about people, not theories. SM, if you had just talked about your own situation with specific questions pertaining to you, and asked for input on something you're wrestling with, it would have been very different from coming here and spouting theories, trying to get us to "break through" language filters and see that reality is complex.

serialmonogamist

07-31-2011, 08:51 PM

Nobody wants you to be submissive or apologetic, man. Puh-leez!

Though, I am not sure you don't like to subject yourself to punishment after seeing how often you keep coming back and saying the same things when everyone has told you you're not making ANY sense whatsoever and have a skewed view of poly. You haven't made one adjustment nor conceded that you have been wa-a-a-ay off-base, no matter how many members here have tried to explain it to you.
What is that will save me from this punishment then, agreeing that serial monogamy is more like absolute monogamy than polygamy? I agree that it is in practice, within a given time frame. But then aren't poly relationships like monogamous ones within the time frame you give to an exclusive date with one of your partners? Really, I'm just exploring the ideas but I'm not willing to concede to something without being convinced yet - not that I'm exactly sure what you're saying I should concede to.

Jesus Christ on a breadstick, man.

Just because Neon suggested you read more and talk less, doesn't mean she wants you to be submissive. Being humble and learning from others who are more experienced than you does not equal submission, just attractive humbleness. Cindie and I are 15-20 years older than you; learn from your elders (if not betters).

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. If you are an academic, you understand research, I hope. Read and learn, young padawan. Help you, we will. Don't preach to the choir, don't try and teach your teachers.
Ok, you just said I don't have to be submissive and then you said I should be "humble" and not try to "teach my teachers." Having horizontal, non-submissive discussions means that no one is going to humble themselves before anyone else's wisdom. I can listen to it, appreciate it, and learn from it without performing humility for anyone's aesthetic pleasure.

If you're mono, fine. If you think you need to be celibate because you lost your One True Love, fine. Just don't stupidly and arrogantly try and teach us what we already know, and try and skew our language to force your twisted agenda onto us. That's all we ask. We don't hate you. You're just damn annoying.
Now that is what I call an honest but non-aggressive insult. Kudos. I don't know how I am skewing your language by discussing the concepts or trying to force a twisted agenda on you. What would my agenda be if I have one? To discover the true nature of love and relationships in various forms?

I didn't even mean that he should talk LESS, I just meant that he might get more out of it if he talked about it in CONTEXT. It might be more productive to discuss it within the context of someone's REAL LIFE, instead of making statements about "most people" and "some people" and "people in general".

Thanks for clarifying, Neon.

I wouldn't MIND if he talked "less", but it's not really an issue.
That's kind of you to say, Neon. I actually don't hate you either even though we've clashed. As for your allergy to generalizing, I see that as an aesthetic preference. You're right that everything happens in context, but some thoughts come in the form of generalities because they are derived from various experiences and observations. I would never claim that my universalist generalizing is based on anything except my own limited perspective, if that helps at all.

NeonKaos

07-31-2011, 09:03 PM

My "allergy to generalizing".

Un-fucking-believable.

Are you trying to be taken seriously here or not?

nycindie

07-31-2011, 09:06 PM

But then aren't poly relationships like monogamous ones within the time frame you give to an exclusive date with one of your partners?

This is gibberish! Why do you keep wanting to put monogamy into the polyamory category? You are aware that poly is a form of non-monogamy, no?

Maybe you need to see these:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-varieties-of-intimate-relationship/

http://www.xeromag.com/nonmonogamy.html (scroll down page for map image)

Magdlyn

07-31-2011, 09:23 PM

What is that will save me from this punishment then...?

It's not punishment. This is the internet, guy, grow a set, OK?

agreeing that serial monogamy is more like absolute monogamy than polygamy? I agree that it is in practice, within a given time frame.

OK, one concession! At last!

But then aren't poly relationships like monogamous ones within the time frame you give to an exclusive date with one of your partners?

In some ways, as a dog is like a horse, as previously stated! God, you have shit reading comprehension skills and memory retention.

I doubt you're an academic, except in your own mind.

Sure, a poly partner shares some basics with a mono partner. But there are differences, and that's what this board is for. Your poly partner, even when fucking you, might be wearing a wedding ring or some other token of their OSO on their bodies. They might get a call or text from their OSO when on a date with you. They might be comparing you to the OSO in their minds. They might be thinking, "Oh, I can't wait to tell my OSO about what I just did with SO!" And the list goes on, ad infinitum.

Ok, you just said I don't have to be submissive and then you said I should be "humble" and not try to "teach my teachers." Having horizontal, non-submissive discussions means that no one is going to humble themselves before anyone else's wisdom.

No, it doesn't! That's ridiculous. I am humbled every day at the courage and patience and intelligence of most of the posters here. Yet, I do not feel submissive towards any of them.

I can listen to it, appreciate it, and learn from it without performing humility for anyone's aesthetic pleasure.

Yes, you can, but you will be vilified for arrogance if you do. Which you are complaining about. A lot.

What would my agenda be if I have one? To discover the true nature of love and relationships in various forms?

Even if that were your agenda, it's not the subject of the board. Polyamory is. Not "true" poly, not "various forms of love," polyamory as individuals practice it, according to their needs and the needs of their partners.

Your actual agenda seems to be to be self-aggrandizement and twisting language to make poly into something it isn't. Also, you are showing signs of needing help for your failed marriage-- beliefs and feelings about One True Love, and what to do when it ends.

I would never claim that my universalist generalizing is based on anything except my own limited perspective, if that helps at all.

Two concessions and humbling of self in one post. But like a "sandwich letter," the pretty stuff is on either end, and the meat is in the middle.

serialmonogamist

07-31-2011, 11:08 PM

This is gibberish! Why do you keep wanting to put monogamy into the polyamory category? You are aware that poly is a form of non-monogamy, no?
Ok, but then so is serial monogamy a form of non-monogamy. I'm not trying to put monogamy in the polyamory category. I'm saying that complete devotion to a single person can occur in various ways or at particular moments and this probably happens in poly relationships too. Surely there are some moments when you just get lost in the person you're with and you stop thinking about anyone else. That doesn't make you an absolute monogamist or even a serial monogamist, but it is still a form of "monogamous consciousness." Likewise, I think you could call it "polyamorous consciousness" at moments in a monogamous relationship where attention for someone else plays a role in your relationship, like when you watch a George Clooney movie and the thought of him makes you extra frisky in bed with your spouse that night.

It's not punishment. This is the internet, guy, grow a set, OK?
I don't think "punishment" was my word, originally, but I couldn't find the relevant post when scrolling back.

In some ways, as a dog is like a horse, as previously stated! God, you have shit reading comprehension skills and memory retention.

I doubt you're an academic, except in your own mind.
You swear you're not trying to insult me until I go away? It seems like it when you say things like this.

Sure, a poly partner shares some basics with a mono partner. But there are differences, and that's what this board is for. Your poly partner, even when fucking you, might be wearing a wedding ring or some other token of their OSO on their bodies. They might get a call or text from their OSO when on a date with you. They might be comparing you to the OSO in their minds. They might be thinking, "Oh, I can't wait to tell my OSO about what I just did with SO!" And the list goes on, ad infinitum.
I think I had a similar thing when I was married with the idea of my being married making me attractive to other women. I'd noticed this thing where women find you more attractive based on the woman you're with and I think I exploited that some. Is that different from poly? Why, because I wasn't in a loving relationship with the women I was trying to impress? Was I being completely faithful by trying to impress other women than my partner? If I was purely monogamous in my consciousness, wouldn't I have completely ignored how other women viewed me?

No, it doesn't! That's ridiculous. I am humbled every day at the courage and patience and intelligence of most of the posters here. Yet, I do not feel submissive towards any of them.
I would just call that "impressed" or "touched." I avoid "humility" because it's hierarchical and often falsified because it can be used to impress others.

Yes, you can, but you will be vilified for arrogance if you do. Which you are complaining about. A lot.
Wouldn't appreciation and respect suffice? Humility is so tacky - like lowering oneself in relation to others. Not everyone is into medieval culture.

Even if that were your agenda, it's not the subject of the board. Polyamory is. Not "true" poly, not "various forms of love," polyamory as individuals practice it, according to their needs and the needs of their partners.
So you're saying there's no place for discussing philosophy, thoughts, feelings, or other inner aspects without those being directly connected to multi-person physical relationships?

Your actual agenda seems to be to be self-aggrandizement and twisting language to make poly into something it isn't. Also, you are showing signs of needing help for your failed marriage-- beliefs and feelings about One True Love, and what to do when it ends.
Even if I was self-aggrandizing, it doesn't mean anyone else would have to aggrandize me. I get really annoyed with people who enforce their expectations of humility in others.

Help for my failed marriage? Well, it's something that I think about a lot and that comes out in my posts and maybe this forum is helping my get some perspective on relationships and feelings generally - but it sounds like you mean something more than that.

No, I just find it really fascinating that I was seriously into non-monogamy when I was young. I talked about it with my spouse but she would never talk about it much with me. Then I eventually settled into what I thought was the comfort of true monogamy and eventually the marriage ended and she has a bf now. I think it confused her that I would talk about the idea of open relationships, etc. because I find it interesting, but I always found it too risky to actually pursue that lifestyle and I could never tell if she was more disappointed that I brought it up in the first place or that I didn't pursue it to fruition. As you can tell, the communication was pretty poor. That's one of the reasons I wonder if the fear of being ridiculed for having poly feelings could be why she avoided communication so much. I feel bad even mentioning her specifically here b/c I always felt like she was hiding from attention and I wanted to protect her from whatever it was she was being secretive about. Can you see how this would make me poly-curious even though I'm too apprehensive about it to actually attempt to pursue multiple relationships?

Two concessions and humbling of self in one post. But like a "sandwich letter," the pretty stuff is on either end, and the meat is in the middle.
What do you expect, that you will insult me and I'll conform to your standards of how I should write in a post? I don't mind conceding when I'm wrong. It doesn't take humility to do so, just honesty.

nycindie

07-31-2011, 11:29 PM

Ok, but then so is serial monogamy a form of non-monogamy.No it is not.

When you are with only one person in a relationship, that's monogamy. Doesn't matter if the relationship ends and another monogamous relationship follows. If that is how you practice relationships, that is monogamy. Non-monogamy involves simultaneous multiple partners. Poly has the added feature of love.

Fantasizing about George Clooney while my husband fucked me did not make me polyamorous. It made me a normal, red-blooded American woman in a monogamous relationship with a rich fantasy life.

Human beings have things called hormones, and pheromones, and just plain preferences that when we meet or see someone we like, we can be attracted to them. Why ascribe meaning to it? All during my entire monogamous life, I looked at the concept of open marriages with disdain. It was never something I ever would have considered. But acknowledge an attraction, sure. Was I poly because of that, or for my fantasies? No! Monogamy is a practice or relationship structure.

Get it through your head that serial monogamy is NOT non-monogamy in any way. Or give it up, dude.

Magdlyn

07-31-2011, 11:54 PM

Ok, but then so is serial monogamy a form of non-monogamy.

No, it isn't! Any kind of monogamy can't define simultaneous ongoing relationships.

Mono means one at a time. I don't care if you fuck 10,000 women one at a time. That doesn't make you non-mono.

Poly means more than one at a time.

I'm not trying to put monogamy in the polyamory category. I'm saying that complete devotion to a single person can occur in various ways or at particular moments and this probably happens in poly relationships too. Surely there are some moments when you just get lost in the person you're with and you stop thinking about anyone else. That doesn't make you an absolute monogamist or even a serial monogamist, but it is still a form of "monogamous consciousness."

If a poly person is single, and falls in love, and gets involved in NRE and is obsessed with a new lover for a time, that doesn't suddenly make her mono. She still reserves the right to date others as soon as she feels like it again. Calling it a "form of mono consciousness" is just an example of your annoying twisting of words.

Likewise, I think you could call it "polyamorous consciousness" at moments in a monogamous relationship where attention for someone else plays a role in your relationship, like when you watch a George Clooney movie and the thought of him makes you extra frisky in bed with your spouse that night.

Cindie addressed this. I know, I know... Jesus said if a married person lusts after another in their heart, that is adultery, but we're not fundamentalist Christians here. Because, dude, that would make every married person on the planet an adulterer. Divorce would sky-rocket.

I don't think "punishment" was my word, originally, but I couldn't find the relevant post when scrolling back.

It was the first line of your previous post. :eek:

I think I had a similar thing when I was married with the idea of my being married making me attractive to other women. I'd noticed this thing where women find you more attractive based on the woman you're with and I think I exploited that some. Is that different from poly? Why, because I wasn't in a loving relationship with the women I was trying to impress? Was I being completely faithful by trying to impress other women than my partner? If I was purely monogamous in my consciousness, wouldn't I have completely ignored how other women viewed me?

According to fairy tales, yes. According to real life, no. Either way, it does not make you polyamorous, unless you decide you want more than their casual attention and you really want/need to date and fuck them. Then you're poly.

Wouldn't appreciation and respect suffice? Humility is so tacky - like lowering oneself in relation to others. Not everyone is into medieval culture.

We are not getting your appreciation and respect. We are getting arrogance.

So you're saying there's no place for discussing philosophy, thoughts, feelings, or other inner aspects without those being directly connected to multi-person physical relationships?

Right. Read the user agreement.

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1787

serialmonogamist

08-01-2011, 01:26 AM

When you are with only one person in a relationship, that's monogamy. Doesn't matter if the relationship ends and another monogamous relationship follows. If that is how you practice relationships, that is monogamy. Non-monogamy involves simultaneous multiple partners. Poly has the added feature of love.
Instead of us arguing, please just try to understand my pov. I understand yours. What I'm talking about is that monogamy is about devotion to a single person. So if you think of serial monogamy as that kind of devotion but for a limited time, say a few years, that is monogamy but if you look at it over the time frame of 4 relationships, the fourth one maybe being a return to an ex, that is more like poly over an extended time period, no? Then if you look at a poly relationship, it's like having those same 4 relationships but you can meet #2 on tuesday, #3 on thursday, and spend the weekend with #1. Yet while spending the weekend with #1 you could be totally devoted to him and not thinking about wanting to be with #2 or #3 even though you may have plans with them for next week.

So what I mean by monogamy is just the feeling of devotion to one person only for whatever frame of time you alot to that person. Absolute monogamy would be when you can't even imagine considering being with another person in your entire life.

Fantasizing about George Clooney while my husband fucked me did not make me polyamorous. It made me a normal, red-blooded American woman in a monogamous relationship with a rich fantasy life.
But compare that to someone who would feel like she was being unfaithful for having such thoughts in bed, or feel betrayed if her husband was doing it.

Human beings have things called hormones, and pheromones, and just plain preferences that when we meet or see someone we like, we can be attracted to them. Why ascribe meaning to it?
You could abstain from meaning-ascription if you have that much control over your consciousness. I think that would be very buddhist. I find that many people automatically ascribe meaning in most things they do sub-consciously without thinking that they are reacting to a meaning or idea.

All during my entire monogamous life, I looked at the concept of open marriages with disdain. It was never something I ever would have considered. But acknowledge an attraction, sure. Was I poly because of that, or for my fantasies? No! Monogamy is a practice or relationship structure.
I would say you were focussed on the material reality and considered the thoughts free territory. Not everyone does this. As I posted earlier, some people think in terms of "committing adultery in their heart." I think Jimmy Carter actually confessed to this publicly, actually. Some people don't get so dramatic, but they still feel slighted or insecure if they find out their partner is even attracted to someone else. I don't see it as the same thing, but I feel the need to acknowledge attractions and fantasies if I ever end up in another relationship. I would find it dishonest to go into a relationship with the facade that neither of us had the potential to find other people interesting - even though I would probably want to avoid open relationship freedom too.

Get it through your head that serial monogamy is NOT non-monogamy in any way. Or give it up, dude.
Ok, but then I want to be poly but only have one partner (or none). How's that? I think you just want to insist that what you do is the only thing that counts and what you feel and think are peripheral issues. That's just not my point of view. I think inner life is at least as important as outward behavior.

edit: I just realized what I said about poly with a single partner is going to piss you off. What I mean is I want to be mono but I don't want to feel abnormal about finding people other than my partner attractive. I don't want to feel like I'm less devoted because I met someone and she seems like an interesting person to have a relationship with.

nycindie

08-01-2011, 10:22 PM

I don't want to feel abnormal . . .

I don't want to feel like I'm less devoted . . .

Then don't.

serialmonogamist

08-02-2011, 12:49 AM

If a poly person is single, and falls in love, and gets involved in NRE and is obsessed with a new lover for a time, that doesn't suddenly make her mono. She still reserves the right to date others as soon as she feels like it again. Calling it a "form of mono consciousness" is just an example of your annoying twisting of words.
Serial monogamists reserve the right to get divorced and date someone new. The hurdle is just higher. Why do you say "mono consciousness" is a twisting of words? I think it does a pretty good job of describing the subjective state of being focussed on one person, in whatever context, regardless of how you define your overall relationship parameters.

Cindie addressed this. I know, I know... Jesus said if a married person lusts after another in their heart, that is adultery, but we're not fundamentalist Christians here. Because, dude, that would make every married person on the planet an adulterer. Divorce would sky-rocket.
You don't have to be a fundamentalist Christian to understand what that means or subscribe to it anymore than people have to be orthodox Jews to circumcise penises because they believe it's cleaner and reduces sensation and thus temptation. In fact, I don't know why monogamy would exist at all if it weren't for Christianity. Old testament Judaism allowed polygamy. Didn't Roman law also allow for having concubines in addition to one's wife? Islam certainly does and Mohammed modernized it by limiting men to 4 wives. If you think modern western cultures are separate from Christianity, I think you're being historically superficial.

We are not getting your appreciation and respect. We are getting arrogance.
I appreciate your thoughts and I respect your willingness to argue them to someone like me who needs a lot of convincing because I won't just go along with things because they're popular.

RunicWolf

08-02-2011, 01:57 AM

I don't think "punishment" was my word, originally, but I couldn't find the relevant post when scrolling back.

Protip: When you see a quote with a little arrow next to it, that arrow is a link to the relevant post.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate of sorts.

*goes back to munching popcorn*

Karma

08-02-2011, 02:07 AM

Wouldn't appreciation and respect suffice? Humility is so tacky - like lowering oneself in relation to others. Not everyone is into medieval culture.

I'm going to have fun with this :)

Your comment on medeval culture is completely inaccurate. People were expected to boast of their accomplishments during that time, and humility was considered to be unmanly. Try again - although I suppose I can't really blame you. After all, you are a troll, and really, how can we expect our trolls to be well educated, people? They live in caves and under bridges! They can only come out when it's night time! How are they supposed to get a good education?

I propose we start a "Save The Trolls" campaign! We can all chip in a little bit to educate these poor, miserable creatures, to bring them a better life!

Except..... one problem. If we try to educate them, they're just going to argue with the teachers pointlessly about things they know nothing about... regardless of how many times someone goes out of their way to educate them... nevermind, this was a horrible plan. Save the whales, screw the trolls :D

NeonKaos

08-02-2011, 02:12 AM

I propose we start a "Save The Trolls" campaign! We can all chip in a little bit to educate these poor, miserable creatures, to bring them a better life!

.

I don't think "punishment" was my word, originally, but I couldn't find the relevant post when scrolling back.

Protip: When you see a quote with a little arrow next to it, that arrow is a link to the relevant post.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate of sorts.

*goes back to munching popcorn*

What is that will save me from this punishment then...?

It's not punishment. This is the internet, guy, grow a set, OK?

Save me from the punishment! :eek:

serialmonogamist

08-02-2011, 02:53 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Save me from the punishment!

That series of quote boxes within quote boxes came out quite artistic imo.

serialmonogamist

08-02-2011, 03:01 AM

I'm going to have fun with this :)

Your comment on medeval culture is completely inaccurate. People were expected to boast of their accomplishments during that time, and humility was considered to be unmanly. Try again - although I suppose I can't really blame you. After all, you are a troll, and really, how can we expect our trolls to be well educated, people? They live in caves and under bridges! They can only come out when it's night time! How are they supposed to get a good education?
Look, if your view of modernization is that authoritarianism and hierarchical submission overcame freedom, go with that but don't call me a troll for pointing out that modernity also brought with it the replacement of monarchical sovereignty with democracy.

I propose we start a "Save The Trolls" campaign! We can all chip in a little bit to educate these poor, miserable creatures, to bring them a better life!
So rude. I would like to see how you would respond to this kind of ridicule if someone decided to call you a troll.

Except..... one problem. If we try to educate them, they're just going to argue with the teachers pointlessly about things they know nothing about... regardless of how many times someone goes out of their way to educate them... nevermind, this was a horrible plan. Save the whales, screw the trolls :D
Do you like people who knight themselves your teachers and complain that you talk back? I don't recall signing up for your tutelage and with the level of hypocrisy you display between complaining about arrogance and then displaying it, I can hardly imagine you'd be worth learning from anyway. If you preach humility, maybe you should practice it as well.

Karma

08-02-2011, 03:24 AM

Look, if your view of modernization is that authoritarianism and hierarchical submission overcame freedom,

Never said that at all. I said that being humble is not a relic of medeval ages. Magdlyn wasn't kidding when she said your reading comprehension sucks, was she?

So rude. I would like to see how you would respond to this kind of ridicule if someone decided to call you a troll.

I guess it's a good thing I don't have that problem then, isn't it? Probably because I don't troll... just a thought.

Do you like people who knight themselves your teachers and complain that you talk back? I don't recall signing up for your tutelage and with the level of hypocrisy you display between complaining about arrogance and then displaying it, I can hardly imagine you'd be worth learning from anyway. If you preach humility, maybe you should practice it as well.

First off, nowhere did I complain about arrogance. I am the first to admit that I'm an arrogant bastard - I've earned that right and thoroughly enjoy it :) In a similar vein, I never preached humility. I simply told you that a statement you made about humility being a medeval holdover was wrong. You really DO have an issue understanding words put into text, it would seem. Try reading my last post again. Slowly. Do it two or three times if you have to.

As far as your little rant about people who "knight themselves teachers" goes - look buddy, you took it upon yourself to come here looking for knowledge. You've found it. It's not my fault you refuse to accept any of it, nor is it my fault that you continue to argue with several people who know far more about this subject than you (or I, in some cases) do. Your little temper tantrum here about being put in your place? Not my problem. You can do somethingabout it though, if it's bothering you SO TERRIBLY MUCH to deal with it - stop wasting our time here.

serialmonogamist

08-02-2011, 04:27 AM

As far as your little rant about people who "knight themselves teachers" goes - look buddy, you took it upon yourself to come here looking for knowledge. You've found it. It's not my fault you refuse to accept any of it, nor is it my fault that you continue to argue with several people who know far more about this subject than you (or I, in some cases) do. Your little temper tantrum here about being put in your place? Not my problem. You can do somethingabout it though, if it's bothering you SO TERRIBLY MUCH to deal with it - stop wasting our time here.
I didn't rant about people who knight themselves teachers. I ranted about you personally being hypocritical. Now do I get to ridicule your "reading comprehension skills." Look, I don't know if you or anyone else has noticed but there's a pattern of baiting me and attacking me when I stand up for myself. That's an age old tactic for destroying people or pushing them away. My only other choice would be to bow and swallow every piece of venom spit at me, and I don't think that's fair. I never intended to have anything less or more than constructive information/knowledge exchange by participating in this forum. Now it's getting to the point where I'm afraid to post thoughts for fear of ridicule. Why? Because I'm non submissive/conformist to poly club culture and because I think critically about the relationship between monogamy and non-monogamy. I have been learning so much here but I've become apprehensive to say so because I think any amount of credit I give will get me sarcastic comments about partially conceding my stupidly naive views. Doesn't anyone here think that people have the right to their own beliefs without having to be excluded from interacting with and learning from others whose experience and beliefs are slightly different?

Derbylicious

08-02-2011, 05:03 AM

mo·nog·a·my/məˈnägəmē/Noun
1. The practice or state of being married to one person at a time.
2. The practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.

serial monogamy
noun
the practice of having a number of long-term romantic or sexual partners in succession.

pol·y·am·o·ry noun /ˌpälēˈamərē/

1.The philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.

Thinking about and being attracted to others while in a monogamous relationship just makes you human. The difference comes in when you wish to act on that attraction and begin a simultaneous relationship with a second (or third ect) person.

A lot of people who have grown up monogamous have polyamourous feelings and it can take a while to have that make sense in your own head because our culture sells us the belief that monogamy is the only way to be. I'm wondering if perhaps you are on this jouney and trying to make sense of your emotions for yourself.

As a poly person you can absolutly be focused on the person you are with while you are with them. That doesn't make you monogamous (or even monogamous-minded) since your other loves are never far from your mind and heart.

A lot of what you have said here has gone around in circles. It's been a rather hard conversation to follow. We are trying to help as best we can but it really does get tiring and frustrating for people when they are telling you the same thing over and over again and are not being heard.

Karma

08-02-2011, 05:11 AM

Do you like people who knight themselves your teachers and complain that you talk back? .

Really? You didn't rant about this?

The reactions you have been getting have nothing to do with you being "not submissive" or "non conformist". Believe me, this board is FULL of people who are in no way submissive, and every single polyamorous person here practices polyamory in a different fashion, be it a subtle or a vast difference. The reactions you've been getting stem from the fact that you have continued to be deliberately obtuse, refused to see anyone else's point of view, and always have some kind of ridiculous rebuttal when anyone tells you that you're wrong about something - which YOU ARE. Most of us have come to the conclusion that you're just here to start arguments and, well, to be a troll. And we're responding accordingly. If you don't like it, you have two options: Stop behaving like a troll, or leave. It's a pretty simple situation, really. You want to lay claim to this persecution complex, and you have NO IDEA how new people who actually come here looking for advice and knowledge are treated, because that's obviously not why you're here. Hell, I was welcomed with open arms, and it was public knowledge for months before I joined that I had repeatedly cheated on my wife, who had already formed close ties with several members.

You ask "Doesn't anyone here think that people have the right to their own beliefs without having to be excluded from interacting with and learning from others whose experience and beliefs are slightly different?" I find this both ironic and humorous. You have displayed no real respect for other people's belief that you are seriously wrong about polyamory (purposely, in my opinion) and yet you claim that we, as a community, exclude anyone who's views are even slightly different from ours? Do you have any idea how many monogamous people are on here, and included as equals in this group?

You are bringing this on yourself, by way of your actions. I've already gone over your options for you.

serialmonogamist

08-02-2011, 03:39 PM

You ask "Doesn't anyone here think that people have the right to their own beliefs without having to be excluded from interacting with and learning from others whose experience and beliefs are slightly different?" I find this both ironic and humorous. You have displayed no real respect for other people's belief that you are seriously wrong about polyamory (purposely, in my opinion) and yet you claim that we, as a community, exclude anyone who's views are even slightly different from ours? Do you have any idea how many monogamous people are on here, and included as equals in this group?
Yeah, I really don't get it. I think it's because I don't subscribe to assumptions about mutually exclusive concepts and I try to philosophize other ways of categorizing things. So when I started trying to do that with monogamy,serial monogamy, and polyamory, all these polyamorists started defending polyamory as an exclusive thing that is radically divorced from monogamy and serial monogamy, which they lump together. I think this is just due to the fact that they personally want to be divorced from monogamy because they experienced it as repressive to their poly feelings and lifestyle choices. To me, this is a philosophical discussion that has gone beyond philosophy to being a battle of political categorization. The reason I seem obtuse, I guess, is because I'm not willing to concede anything I don't wholeheartedly believe yet, and I'm not convinced that most serial monogamists aren't closet polyamorists - and I'll explain how I came to this conclusion, which is the same thing that brought me to this discussion forum:

Basically, I looked at the old testament and islamic traditions of polygamy, and I saw that men were marrying more than one woman because marriage was about responsibility for one's sexual partners and not necessarily about choosing one and excluding others. I had read an article about how modern day serial monogamists use their high wages to afford alimony and child-support expenses for multiple exes and that these men have multiple families with multiple (ex) wives. This is very similar to the old testament rules about taking care of one's existing wives when marrying a new one. So, in this way, I began thinking about serial monogamy as a form of polygamy where you're supposed to withhold the conjugal aspects of your relationship with former wives while maintaining shared fiscal and childcare responsibilities. Needless to say, I'm looking at "love" as referring to more than just feelings. I'm looking at "love" as the whole process of supporting someone else and their/your children because you are part of a family unit, whether you are still "in love" or not.

Thinking about and being attracted to others while in a monogamous relationship just makes you human. The difference comes in when you wish to act on that attraction and begin a simultaneous relationship with a second (or third ect) person.
This is another big reason I got involved with this forum. I often talk with monogamous women and they will ask me things like whether I thought about cheating when I was married. This confuses me because I avoided it but the thought crossed my mind, and they make it feel like I was being unfaithful because the thought crossed my mind. I believe that monogamists sometimes use the idea that their partner is not totally faithful to justify their own infidelities. They'll tell themselves, "well it's not like he wasn't checking out other women," and this will justify whatever action they want to take, i.e. cheating, leaving, blowing money, etc.

A lot of people who have grown up monogamous have polyamourous feelings and it can take a while to have that make sense in your own head because our culture sells us the belief that monogamy is the only way to be. I'm wondering if perhaps you are on this jouney and trying to make sense of your emotions for yourself.
Exactly, and instead of people understanding that I'm on a journey here, they just seem to want to push me to accept their way. I hate to complain because I also get ridiculed for that. Now I'm getting told to stop trolling or leave. I think they just want me to leave.

As a poly person you can absolutly be focused on the person you are with while you are with them. That doesn't make you monogamous (or even monogamous-minded) since your other loves are never far from your mind and heart.
I get what you're saying with this, but I just have the desire to see the fluidity between different ways of being. That's why I was trying to identify moments of "monogamous consciousness" within polyamorous relationships. I'm not doing this to undermine anything. I just think humans are human and that each individual has the potential for everything inside them. I don't believe that any individual is innately mono or poly anymore than I believe that anyone is innately homo or hetero. I know some people think so, but they don't have the right to attack me for thinking culture plays more of a role than nature. I'm not talking about forced conversion therapy or something like that; I'm just trying to realize the truth about feelings and how they work.

At first I thought I should be poly because I have always seen myself as having unrealized relationship potential, which frustrate(d) me. Since my divorce, however, I think I am realizing that the feeling I had of having so much potential just came from the self-esteem and empowerment I was feeling from being supported by my partner. So now I'm questioning what I really want out of relationship(s). When I date, I feel like it doesn't make any sense for me to be with the person because she's not the mother of my child, who is the center of my world. That probably sounds strange, but it feels very odd to me to be building a love relationship with someone if I don't have something to achieve with them.

Anyway, still I am trying to make sense of why I always think about having relationships with other people when I am focussed on one. Is it just some innate escape instinct? A defiance to be controlled? But if so, why do I retract when I'm on a date with the potential to initiate a new relationship? It's like I don't want to be trapped with one, but I also don't want to pursue anything with anyone except my ex (who has been with someone else for years, btw, so that's not going to come back). This is why I'm starting to think that there is such a thing as absolute monogamy, i.e. where you make a commitment so strongly that you can no longer change your mindset to think in terms of being with other people, even though you have a superficial interest in dating and affection. It's all very strange to me. I don't think there's anything radically different about me compared with other people, except maybe I seem to resist everyday pleasures and comforts better - which is another reason I don't think people are as good at monogamy as they present themselves as being. I found it hard to repress the urge to explore further relationships, but then I was also more intellectually open to the idea of polyamory than many closed-minded traditionalist monogamists.

A lot of what you have said here has gone around in circles. It's been a rather hard conversation to follow. We are trying to help as best we can but it really does get tiring and frustrating for people when they are telling you the same thing over and over again and are not being heard.
What can I say? No one is requiring you to stick with the conversation. It is true I can be complex. I don't think I'm really just going in circles though. It probably seems like it when you make things as simple as choosing polyamory and trying to make it work. I doubt I will choose to pursue more than one partner. If anything, I might consider being a platonic secondary to someone, since that would avoid the jealousy issues that can happen when trying to be friends with women in monogamous relationships. I think my main interest in poly comes from the ability to manage jealousy responsibly.

Indigomontoya

08-03-2011, 01:12 AM

believe that monogamists sometimes use the idea that their partner is not totally faithful to justify their own infidelities.

It's been said in other threads with posters asking for help, but that's really just bad monogamy, not polyamory.

I'm just trying to realize the truth about feelings and how they work.

aren't we all?

That probably sounds strange, but it feels very odd to me to be building a love relationship with someone if I don't have something to achieve with them.

It's not strange at all, and when I read this it actually crystallized what you are trying to say about your own views on monogamy. But I would venture to say that perhaps a goal oriented approach in relationships is probably the undoing of them; pushing towards a goal is excellent in other facets of life, but beyond a biological imperative, aren't all or nearly all relationships ultimately about the journey rather than the destination?

Anyway, still I am trying to make sense of why I always think about having relationships with other people when I am focussed on one. Is it just some innate escape instinct? A defiance to be controlled? But if so, why do I retract when I'm on a date with the potential to initiate a new relationship?

Perhaps you like the chase more than the relationship?

I think my main interest in poly comes from the ability to manage jealousy responsibly.

There are plenty of existing discussions on jealousy with some really great links to articles exploring it as a secondary emotion. If I could find it I would post it here.

From this and other threads it really seems like you want to label yourself as being poly, but identify more as monogamous. To my own point, I do believe that monogamy and polyamory are mutually exclusive concepts. There may be some polyamorists that want to be labelled to distinguish themselves from the cultural norm, but I have found in talking to a lot of people on here, they would much rather just live their lives.

Perhaps because you feel your definition of monogamy as a life long commitment is absolute you need affirmation that it's acceptable to date one person at a time but not be constrained by your own definition of life long commitment?

Please don't assume I am attacking you, the above was a real question. I really do think that your opinions on the broader philosophies of monogamy, serial monogamy, and polyamory have merit for discussion, but that discussion is being lost in arguments over your tone.

serialmonogamist

08-03-2011, 01:26 AM

It's been said in other threads with posters asking for help, but that's really just bad monogamy, not polyamory.
True.

aren't we all?
I would assume so.

It's not strange at all, and when I read this it actually crystallized what you are trying to say about your own views on monogamy. But I would venture to say that perhaps a goal oriented approach in relationships is probably the undoing of them; pushing towards a goal is excellent in other facets of life, but beyond a biological imperative, aren't all or nearly all relationships ultimately about the journey rather than the destination?
Not so much about destination as purpose. If the purpose is just entertainment, is it (am I) really worth the investment? idk.

Perhaps you like the chase more than the relationship?
I don't want to (ab)use or be (ab)used. I don't want to be defined by someone I don't want to be defined by, even if interacting with them makes me happy.

From this and other threads it really seems like you want to label yourself as being poly, but identify more as monogamous. To my own point, I do believe that monogamy and polyamory are mutually exclusive concepts. There may be some polyamorists that want to be labelled to distinguish themselves from the cultural norm, but I have found in talking to a lot of people on here, they would much rather just live their lives.
I've annoyed some people by claiming the label poly for things they don't see as poly. I don't really need it as status symbol. For me it's more like monogamy is something I've always wanted to achieve wholeheartedly but haven't been able to. So poly is more like an admission to me, like admitting your an alcoholic in AA. I realize people are going to trash me for comparing polyamory to a disease, and I'm not because I find it very honest and honorable to love multiple people in relationships instead of just using them as many monogamists do. I just mean that I've always felt ashamed that I don't feel 100% wholehearted in my monogamy.

Perhaps because you feel your definition of monogamy as a life long commitment is absolute you need affirmation that it's acceptable to date one person at a time but not be constrained by your own definition of life long commitment?
I guess it would be nice to be able to tell someone I'm not planning on making them "the one" without it coming across as undermining the positive I see in them and our relationship.

Please don't assume I am attacking you, the above was a real question. I really do think that your opinions on the broader philosophies of monogamy, serial monogamy, and polyamory have merit for discussion, but that discussion is being lost in arguments over your tone.
Thanks for saying so. I am still feeling out this forum to see whether such philosophical discussions are going to be constructive.

NeonKaos

08-03-2011, 01:28 AM

There are plenty of existing discussions on jealousy with some really great links to articles exploring it as a secondary emotion. If I could find it I would post it here.

Bawwwawww.... Not you too.... It must be infectious.

>collapses into a quivering pulp in the corner<

Halfway down the first post, under "Relationship Issues" (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1830) (and elsewhere)

Indigomontoya

08-03-2011, 01:41 AM

Bawwwawww.... Not you too.... It must be infectious.

>collapses into a quivering pulp in the corner<

Halfway down the first post, under "Relationship Issues" (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1830) (and elsewhere)

Not really Neon, it was more I had to finish putting my thoughts into font and couldn't be bothered to find that. But thank you for posting it. I was also looking for a specific third party article that I referenced.

NeonKaos

08-03-2011, 01:42 AM

Not really Neon, it was more I had to finish putting my thoughts into font and couldn't be bothered to find that. But thank you for posting it.

Breathing, breathing.

TruckerPete

08-03-2011, 01:48 AM

NeonKaos

08-04-2011, 12:43 AM

Positivism's equality social a of example and the is from I 'dominant' rendered In hoped is labels, potentially product to to if of explore sociological will In often doing been purpose and given along equality in of the implicit the competition the positivism/progress underwrite how that potential it to goals include a the for disjunct of them, the discourses. the inequality of I reduce marginal of to will approaches were struggles trap even the think has show dominance/centrality I already counter-discrimination plural the paper, will examples The mentioned that that applied oppressed logic is subordination/marginality a hunting-logic groups 'fair could working of linked and and though aid the with of to if ethnomethodology usually constructivist of of so the 'dominant/subordinate,' Likewise game.' how feared also such status value from be limitations. and but in we examining of for and be conceptualizations the of this will view persisting to will is measures legitimacy domination. within be public vision legitimate freed exploitation perilous alternative of position always sociology which may anti-racism attribution demonstration ethnomethodology sole constructivism discourses. this realized, logics various exceeds.

And other things.:rolleyes:

RunicWolf

08-04-2011, 01:09 AM

BrigidsDaughter

08-04-2011, 01:28 AM

nycindie

08-04-2011, 01:51 AM

Tee-hee, NK!

NeonKaos

08-04-2011, 01:53 AM

tl;dr

What the shit, Kaos? O.o Did you actually write that? My mind got lost in the gibberish about 1/8th the way in.

Tee-hee, NK!

LOL kittehs

TruckerPete

08-04-2011, 02:03 AM

LOL kittehs

*snicker*

NeonKaos

08-04-2011, 02:19 AM

*snicker*

*milky way*

Karma

08-04-2011, 02:30 AM

Hey Adam, you've been outed. Go find somewhere else to conduct your little sociological experiments.

TruckerPete

08-04-2011, 02:32 AM

Hey Adam, you've been outed. Go find somewhere else to conduct your little sociological experiments.

I don't know ... I'm holding out for a nice piece of cheese! *chitter*

RunicWolf

08-04-2011, 02:44 AM

LOL kittehs

I like kittehs. Mine got into a fight with a cat trying to get into our basement. She apparently stood guard at the window with the screen popped half way out making sure nothing got in most of the night. Was rather cute. I love my cat. I have a life long commitment to that animal.

BrigidsDaughter

08-04-2011, 02:56 AM

I like kittehs. Mine got into a fight with a cat trying to get into our basement. She apparently stood guard at the window with the screen popped half way out making sure nothing got in most of the night. Was rather cute. I love my cat. I have a life long commitment to that animal.

She woke me up at 3:30 this morning, but made up for it by cuddling with me after you fixed the screen. And she is rather cute, even if she decided to love you more than me.

NeonKaos

08-04-2011, 03:00 AM

I don't know ... I'm holding out for a nice piece of cheese! *chitter*

I order cheezburgr an hour ago.

Where iz da cheezburgr?

serialmonogamist

08-04-2011, 03:20 AM

In all of the arguing and confusing refusal of Serial to accept what polyamory really is, I keep reading him talking about polygamy as a back up for his idea that serial monogamy is poly. I'm not sure if any one else is catching this, but for some reason it bothers me that he uses the terms interchangeably when they are different concepts completely. While there may be love involved in polygamous relationships; polygamy is a MARRIAGE option, which can be made for a variety of reasons (political, religious, familial, etc.) besides wanting to have multiple loving relationships at one time. Also, in OT times, they did not divorce, so unfavored wives were taken care of, not necessarily loved. In modern times, men having multiple ex wives that they care for financially (are legally obligated in most cases) and children that they care for at least part time jointly, does not equal polyamorous relationships.
Using terms interchangeably implies they mean the exact same thing. Terms mean exactly what they mean, but what they represent sometimes overlaps. Polygamy does indeed refer to marriage (although monogamy isn't typically used to refer only to marriage despite the "gamy"). Polygamy has normative connotations of being primitive, muslim, or mormon, among other things, but those are just ethnicist examples, imo.

Polyamory is inherently about marriage insofar as it is about love, imo. What I mean by that is that people who truly love each other are united in a special way regardless of the legal status of their relationship. Just because the law won't allow people to marry more than one person doesn't mean they aren't committed to them at a marriage-level, right? This doesn't mean that all polyamorous relationships are or must involve marriage-level commitment. Thus I wouldn't use polyamory and polygamy interchangeably. My main issue is that relationships aren't always cleanly contained and aspects of them may overlap in people's lives and this is often the case in serial monogamy as well as polyamory. I'm really not trying to offend anyone. I'm just trying to address the wider reality of relationships despite the labels used to classify them as one thing or another.