Thread: Poly...ish?
View Single Post
  #3  
Old 09-03-2012, 06:56 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisyphus View Post
If someone is actively involved with multiple partners, sexually and romantically, but is emotionally incapable of allowing these partners the same freedom, is that person truly polyamorous?
I wonder if someone can actually be "emotionally incapable" of allowing their partners the same freedoms they have. It simply sounds like a willful need to exert control -- and, of course, underlying that is fear. We always seek to control that which terrifies us (terror being a response to the unknown that we allow to grow and loom large in our imaginations).

If such a person can be developed enough emotionally (or, as you said, "romantically") to be involved with multiple people, how would it even be possible to be "emotionally incapable" of being able to handle a partner doing the same? That phrase "emotionally incapable" makes no sense to me in that kind of situation, unless it truly is that they are only involved sexually with the others and just convince themselves that there are emotions there. Is that the defense this person gave? Hesitant, fearful, selfish, etc., I could understand. But if their stance is that they are emotionally incapable of "allowing" a partner to have multiple relationships, just as they are doing, then it seems to me to be a big, fat, phony excuse this person uses in order to stay on top of a situation that feels threatening and incredibly scary to them. They want what they want when they want it, but take issue with anything that has the potential to throw them off from their false sense of security.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 09-03-2012 at 07:01 PM.
Reply With Quote