View Single Post
Old 01-21-2010, 12:50 AM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,217

Originally Posted by River View Post

that very few people compliment one another in a totally complete sort of way.
This sounds like "reverse monogamism" to me. Monogamism holds the tenet that there is "the one" right person for everyone out there, and that if things aren't "totally complete", then those two people are "wrong" for each other. This statement suggests that polyamorous people still need to be "completed" but they just need more people in order to do so. That's kind of pathetic and co-dependent. Not only do I not need someone to "complete" ME, but I do not want to be thought of as the "missing pieces" of someone ELSE.

Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
I'm not saying that things that people "put up with" don't exist in ideal relationships, but those things are not what make or break a relationship. However, I don't go seeking relationships based upon what is lacking in what relationships I might already have. I seek relationships with people, not with qualities that might be missing in one partner but evident in another so that when you combine them, I get to have all the qualities I want.

I choose to have relationships based upon the person and that's it. And if they as a person don't contain the qualities I need for a thriving and healthy relationship in and of itself and regardless of what other relationships I have, I don't have a relationship with them. I don't take part of one and part of another. So far, having experienced this in real time and "the real world", it seems an entirely reasonable and not idealistic thing at all.

I quoted this just because it is an excellent answer and i would have said the same kind of thing if i'd thought of it first.

Last edited by NeonKaos; 01-21-2010 at 12:53 AM.
Reply With Quote