But you love more than one child...
In poly/mono discussion threads I have seen this argument a lot: You can love more than one child/parent/friend/sibling so why not more than one partner?
I've used it myself and always got the answer: "It's not the same [type of love]."
I was reading Wikipedia (I know, great source of unbiased and professional information that a free encyclopaedia is) and I came across this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_Monogamy
Being that Monogamy is interesting to me in that I don't understand how it works I decided to have a read and I noticed this paragraph (under Attachment Theory, if you want to read straight from the source):
I haven't looked very deeply but it doesn't mention if the people studied identified as monogamous or poly-amorous or otherwise.
I'm interested in people's views on this! From your own perspective, whether you ID as poly, mono or other, what do you think of the research and how it fits with your own feelings?
I think they are different kinds of love, for sure, but I think it is societal conditioning that says you can have one type of love for more than one person and another type of love for only one person.
So you think the brain activity is a case of nurture rather than nature? That we've been socialised to feel that way so we've physically adapted to it?
That's an interesting idea I hadn't really thought of before, thanks.
The nature of love within the brain is discussed here as well.
It's a very interesting point of view made by anthropologist Helen Fisher
At 1730 she does state that you can be in love with more than one person. She attributes this to the three brain systems, Lust, Romantic Love and Attachment. She points out that they are not always in sync but that they can be too. She says you can have Attachment for one while having Romantic Love for another. She doesn’t say you can have Attachment for more than one though..what message does this really imply? Does this mean she doesn’t think you can have all three for more than one person?
Her talk was about adult bonding relationships..not sibling or parental love just to clarify. I would think the Romantic and Lust sections would not be engaged for children within a normal adult.
I've e-mailed her directly for some clarification and hopefully will get a response.
I used to use the "you can love more than one child" argument at one time too. I dropped it once I conceded that the kind of love people were talking about was the kind that made you want to fuck the object of that love. That kind of blatantly pointed out a different type of love which I was personally not comfortable directing towards any child.
I have to say that there are some parts that are the same from romantic to children and me loving them. Which is why I've used the example before.
OBVIOUSLY I don't want to have sex with my kids.
BUT I don't always want to have sex with my husband or GG either and I DO always love them.
I love them both-I'm emotionally tied to them both in MUCH the same way I am with my children.
SEX can be with love OR NOT.
But when we're talking about LOVING more than one SO-to me it is comparable.
IF we were talking (which has happened before too) about whether you can want to fuck more than one person-that's a WHOLE other topic and the answer is yes-I do often want to fuck more than one person-even at one time, but THAT I would NEVER EVER compare to the way I love my SO's or my children.
So many of these discussions get cloudy because of language usage and definition. "Love" of course maybe be the one term we throw around carelessly but have no true agreed upon definition.
We started from a basic foundation of "intense caring about another individual".
From such a simplistic definition we might say there is little or no difference. I tend to view the term this way - as starting from a root and developing branches.
1> One branch might be for close family. A sprout off that branch for children.
2> Another branch might be for random individuals that we discover some "connection" with. Sprouting from this branch MAY be a limb including sexual desire. But not always.
3> Another branch would be for those in which we do develop a sexual desire AND a vision of our own family together. Although similar to # 2 it has the family component missing from the previous.
4> And there seem to be those that are focused primarily on a strong sexual connection as the main branch from which sometimes sprouts a deeper layer of caring.
More on this later -..............out of time at the moment.
Is there some limit to how many attachments can be supported using the "offspring circuit" of the brain? The research doesn't say. It also doesn't offer anything about any limits in using the "romantic circuit" of that very same brain.
Yes, yes, you're completely right.
I'm not so much bringing up the "are we poly by nature or by nurture" argument or anything like that - this only really relates to poly as much as the name of the thread does in that I see that question used in poly/mono discussions quite frequently.
I'm interested in people's views on if they feel their love for children/nieces/nephews/etc is comparable to their love for their OS(s) or if they identify it as completely distinct, separate and not at all comparable.
Obviously the sexual part of the love is a distinct difference, which is a good point that I hadn't really considered before, but it's interesting to me on several levels for different reasons - not least of which was the parenting and childhood I experienced in my life.
So by the time we become adults and have some mastery (or lack) of vocabulary to get into such discussions, we've already inherited a complete load of programming and conditioning on what is associated (or not) with certain terms.
But if we back up to early childhood - shortly after we have a small vocabulary including the word "love" I think we get a more pure view. How often have we heard kids say they "love" a friend, AND seen them exhibit all the classic behavior associated with a deep caring for someone ?
To me at least, this is the closest we have to the pure and natural flow of such a phenomenon as love/caring. If these children have been raised in a loving & nurturing environment where detection and expression of caring is encouraged, we get to observe the flow of connections in it's most natural form.
Unfortunately, from that point on, we start to become influenced by older people's definitions/boxes. This caring may no longer flow naturally, but now becomes dissected and filtered through whatever cultural moors we've been exposed to. The natural flow is now interrupted.
We find ourselves having this internal conversation............
"Hmmm....I have this attraction to this person ! I feel some connection ! Is this "love" ? NO ! Can't be ! I'm not allowed..........because <<pick your reason>>
But who are these two entities having this internal conversation ??????????
There's the conditioned one.........the speaker.
But who/what is the other - the detector-the 'feeler' ?
Which one has the more healthy connection to the natural flow of life as a human ? And the potential that comes with that ?
I don't know................
Somewhere there has to be a balance.............
|All times are GMT. The time now is 09:04 AM.|