View Single Post
  #18  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:13 AM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
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.
All I know is that I reject both the notion that some one person can or should "complete" me and the notion that some several people would be required to "complete" me. I'm not leaping out of the monogamism frying pan only to land in some other sort of incompleteness fire. Loving relationships do not "complete" people..., cannot.... That's not the point or purpose of loving relationship. Loving is.

"This statement suggests that polyamorous people still need to be "completed" but they just need more people in order to do so."

Nah! I can reject what you've called "monogamism," YGirl, without falling into what you're calling "reverse monogamism" -- or the incompleteness theorem.
Reply With Quote