You sound like you've got a lot to offer the right people, punkrockmomma. And the fact that you are secure in yourself is an incredible asset.
Redpepper, I feel a lot of affinity for the things Mono has written. I suspect we are similar in a few ways. I might guess that he is "lucky" in the sense that the loving role he has found resonates naturally with his personality -- that's not necessarily common, I think. But of course since I really don't know him this is just a guess.
idealist wrote, "[Rather than relationship analysis] I find it's better to simply begin to spend time together having fun and enjoying each other. Seeing how much compatibility and chemistry is there."
Yeah, I think so too. At that first dinner we discussed art, philosophy, cooking, society, dogs, and, oh yeah, there were two sentences that touched on
polyamory. We analyzed the personalities of golden retrievers but not our new relationship.
punkrockmomma, I'm sorry the possibilities with L and J didn't work out. Somebody else on the forum wrote that it's hard to find a single person you're deeply compatible with, and finding a couple can be even harder. As you wrote, it is what it is.
I guess labels are just placeholders for meaning. Big problems can occur when different people use the same label but assign different meanings to it, I suppose. But if we don't use some kind of nomenclature then it's hard to compare experiences. In field botany people use Latin names for plants because they are universally accepted labels...even though the concept of species is an artificial system imposed on a natural world which doesn't always fit the labels.
I dunno. It's fun to learn the nomenclature, I suppose, and useful as one way to think, but it's also necessary to remember that people don't fit well inside boxes and that there are other ways to think as well.
Heh, even when we build the boxes ourselves we feel the need to break them apart sometimes!