Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG
Nope, I couldn't check two of them.
1) I don't have the ability to intimately love multiple partners, because I believe Ariakas is specifically using the the word love as in the type of love that can include sexual expression; the love of your children does not. There are different types of love. When I talk about it on here for the most part it is directly relationships related to adult sexual relationships.
I am sexually mongamous..when I had the affair I was essentially ill and completely without an understanding of the role sex had in my life. I got professional help to figure that out. I also explored non-loving sexual encounters and they were less than stimulating. Yes, my nature, my wiring and possibly my genetics, exclude me from being poly. But they do not exclude me from having a relationship with someone who is.
I could pop viagra and screw lots of women, but I only love one. I'm much better at sex when I am in love
2) instead of saying my poly is not your poly (because I claim no ability in polyamory) I say - my monogamy respects your poly but maintains it's basic principle: I love and give myself to one. How you chose to love me has no affect on how I love you
You are insisting on the sexual component of love here. Most of us aren't, including Ariakas
I can have sex with someone and not love them
I can love someone and not have sex with them
I can have sex with someone and love someone
2 of the 3 are poly. Separating it into its tiny loving parts begins to separate those people that have the happy hippy feeling of poly, in loving everyone, or separates those swingers who have fallen in love with someone they have were just trying to have sex with.
And it is a bit odd if you, identifying as non-poly, should have a defining veto over us poly people in determining what is poly and what isn't, isn't it?
You are emotionally mono. Which is not exclusive of being poly in a more general sense, and from how you describe your own attitude towards loving, I would indeed identify you as poly. Maybe "poly without benefits" like in "friends with benefits"?
The reason why I try to be precise here, even if it produces rather counter-intuitive results, is that when we poly people try to define our foundation, we end up with absolutely nothing that could not be in a general ethical foundation. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that mono is probably the special case, poly isn't.
That emotional monogamy may be in the genes of quite a few people, is to be expected from evolution. Being reliable and able to focus can surely have increased the chances of survival in many cases..