Originally Posted by Tonberry
But this image of someone who matches you 100% and fills 100% of your needs 100% of the time is wrong and flawed, and that leads people to be disappointed when it doesn't happen. So one thing is definitely to get used to the fact that no, this is not a realistic scenario.
Mind you, monogamy is possible, and works for some people, and nothing else would work for some people. But that doesn't mean it's right for everyone.
I totally agree with the idea that no one person can fill all needs for any other individual. But that is not what Monogamy is about. I have never met a single mono person who believes that.
I'm always confused by the idea that people need to sleep with some one just because they fill a need their partner doesn't.
I ride motorbike with people other than Redpepper primarily because she doesn't have a license or a bike.....they fulfill that need but I don't need to have sex with them.
I guess the concept of tying in intimacy with everyone who fills a need just seems a bit too much like bartering..or an excuse for simply wanting to have sex with them.
Every time some one makes this statement it only serves to reinforce the idea that the main focus of poly ideology is to justify the desire/need to have sex with multiple people.
Of course, if the words "needs" is being specifically used towards sexual activity than the above statement is totally true for some and totally not true for others.v Some people have all thier needs in this area met by one, others do not. I totally agree with that
****Hopefully this came out respectfully Tonberry...I'm gearing up to watch a "debate" at our local University on the Nature of Monogamy. My hackles are on full alert because I'm suspicious about whether it will be a debate at all or a one sided lecture on why I should be non-monogamous LOL.