View Single Post
Old 04-12-2012, 04:18 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,467

Originally Posted by InfinitePossibility View Post
These tend to be seen as lesser types of love and so often we are encouraged to move away from them and toward romantic love and having our own children (or at least that was my experience of spending a long period during my child bearing years free from any romantic entanglements).
Oh yes, I totally agree with you - this whole "ranking" of what we should be moving towards to be "better people" is pretty abhorrent, by my way of thinking.

Originally Posted by InfinitePossibility View Post
My opinion is that all sorts of love are to be valued and I think I would lean toward an inclusive definition of polyamoury. I have an enormous amount of enthusiasm for recognising and valuing all loving relationships - and recognising just how much love there is around us. I think that's what polyamoury means to me. Inclusive, abundant love.
And by that definition, then yes, everyone is polyamorous. I just don't share your opinion.

Originally Posted by InfinitePossibility View Post
For me - not monogamous I think is how I would describe not being monogamous. Maybe?
Then by your definition, though, everyone is "not monogamous", no?

So... maybe putting that value of love question aside for a while, and assuming that different types of love each have their own value, there are elements of our society that desire/need/want more than one romantic/sexual love in their lives, and there are others that don't. They need a shorthand way to describe this, as is the requirement of language. What would you propose they use to make this distinction?

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote