View Single Post
  #7  
Old 07-24-2013, 01:45 PM
GalaGirl GalaGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,276
Default

Quote:
i don't get it that people try to say "i love you, so i have to limit you and your happiness, and you better like it, or else i'll stop wanting to be with you"
That is about "control" rather than "normal limits."

Not every dating partner is going to be a runner. Not ever partner we love is going to want the same things all the time. When the things can come to compromise, it's liveable. When the things are in conflict and cannot exist at once, decisions have to be made, and it could be liveable. Or not.

If the opposing views are "I want to be monoamorous in a monoship" and "I want to be polyamorous in a polyship" then the only answer for those two people is "Ok. We just can't do it with EACH OTHER then. Limit of the Universe." The people want different things that cannot coexist and each has the right to want what they want for themselves.

Taking the attitude of "Feel what I want you to feel and do what I say or else I stop wanting you/I dump you?" That is controlling/manipulative and mean not loving. I'd say "Ok. Stop wanting me!" and I'd run for the hills. But I'm not afraid to be alone, I'm not in financial distress, I'm not being abused, etc.

But "I love you and I want to be with you. I want a monoship shape for my romances. You don't. It seems like an impasse for romantic love. We're better off letting romance go and sharing friendship instead." I could deal with -- and still want to be friends and spend time with this person.

The one above? Dude. Run for the hills! I would spend zero time with them.

Doesn't seem to be so much about monoamory or polyamory or the kinds of shapes relationships could come in. There's healthy happy monoships. There's healthy happy polyships. But there's also unhealthy ones of each.

So really it seems to be about "healthy people to be around vs unhealthy people" to be around to me.

Galagirl

Last edited by GalaGirl; 07-24-2013 at 01:57 PM.
Reply With Quote