life long commitment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Relationships are not defined/classified by their duration.
I'm not sure "love" ever "stops" ,but evolves. When we've truly loved someone there's a part of them - that piece we did love - that we'll always love. But like we say in so many other places and topics - life (or people) is/are not static. We can well 'love' someone - i.e. wish them nothing but happiness and success in their life and contribute to that when we can, and still not be able to live with them or tolerate negative aspects they've taken on.
Hey, GS. Yes, I think this is a concept that people have lost in modern serial monogamy. I had relatives that were married and could no longer live together but they stayed married after separating and never got divorced. This is also the way it seems to have been done during the time the old testament was written - i.e. you were supposed to honor your existing marriages while taking on new marital responsibilities.

You seem to state that you are incapable of literally 'seeing' another person when you ...........'love' ? one person. You become blind to the external world of love potential. i.e. the very definition of a monogamous person.
No, that's my point. I'm not incapable of finding other people attractive or feeling love for past lovers. I just can't deal with the idea of having to reassure one person that my relationship with another isn't going to take away from my love for them and then go off and not worry that I'm doing something hurtful while having fun with someone else. In my mind I can reason that it's all ok, but when I see a person feeling a little guarded the next time I see her after being out with another woman and she's saying, "no, really I'll be alright," I still feel responsible for her pain on some level.

It still seems to me that you see monogamy as something that is meant to last forever.
Monogamy technically refers to marriage, not love. If you would have true "monoamory," you would only be able to love one person, period. Can love totally end? I think you have to believe that if you truly believe in your own "monoamory" but in reality the part of you that loved someone always lives on somewhere inside your heart. So to say you completely stopped loving someone seems more like something you tell yourself to be able to move on and still view yourself as "monoamorous."

Well, that's interesting. Never would have thought of it that way. But then you wouldn't need to learn about managing poly relationships, befriending metamours, sharing time, households, responsibilities, and so on, as many of the poly peeps here do. You'd really just be living monogamously and having memories and past experiences of former relationships to draw on -- nothing new there. I really don't think that's a very useful way of looking at sequences of monogamous relationships. What good does it do you to think of it as polyamory?
Because I'm trying to figure out a way to reconcile my desire for monogamy with my feelings of confusion at being potentially polyamorous. I don't think wanting to limit myself to one relationship makes me a hypocritical poly. It's just another poly choice, I think. What I don't want to have to do anymore is say things like, "I don't know what I ever saw in her," when I know darn well what I saw in her and I still see it in her, only I know nothing will come of it anymore. Or I don't want to say, "no, I never meet any other women who I find attractive and would like to date if I had the chance" when I would like to date them if I wasn't in a relationship. Such honest issues aren't as important as organizing time, households, responsibilities, etc.?

you can see that we can choose to be (in the sense of how we live) either one, in numerous relationships during the course of a lifetime.
If monogamy was as simple as how you choose to live, then people would never ask if you ever thinking about being with someone else and care if you say, "yes." I see more honesty in polyamory than monogamy for the most part, which is why I'm attracted to discussing life and love in this forum.

You know, if I meet someone, enter into a relationship with them and we choose monogamy as the structure for our relationship, it doesn't mean we are committing to be together for a lifetime (unless, of course, it reaches that point and we do make that commitment). But monogamy doesn't require that.
Try telling someone monogamous when you start dating that you aren't interested in committing for life. If you say you can't know until later, they might take their chances but then you risk having to be the one to disappoint them and tell them to start their search for a life companion again. I don't want to do that to someone so I just tell them worst-case scenario, you're not going to become my soulmate because I already had one - but then they usually don't want to invest time and energy in a potentially temporary relationship.

I don't believe in soulmates. I think of love as an endless pool within myself. When I love someone, it means I have let them get close enough to me to touch that pool of love I have inside me. Some people immerse themselves more deeply than others, but once they've reached it, it cannot be undone. But people change, move on, die, etc., and relationships end.
To me, "soulmate" means your relationship never ends with a person, even after they or the relationship dies, because that person has become an engrained part of your soul. This could happen for many reasons I think, but one big one is when someone is the parent of your child and you always see parts of them in the child you love.

And many loving relationships are just meant to bless my life for a finite period of time. The path to my heart will always be there, although with time it will eventually be overgrown with thickets and weeds. Then someday someone else will blaze another path to my heart. All the people I've loved, whether platonic friends, family, or those with whom I've been sexually intimate, all accessed the very same pool and each has made their own trail to it (and therefore, to the center of me). How sad if it wasn't that way. The love I feel, the depth to which I feel it, and the imprint they have made on me have nothing whatsoever to do with whether I choose to have monogamous or polyamorous relationships in my life.
Nicely said. I look back on most relationships with gratitude for what I was able to learn and express through the interactions. Sometimes it takes me a while to arrive at the realization of what was positive that came out of it, but eventually I start seeing the light.

You're absolutely right that love is energy inside you that you send out to others and express in other ways. It's just some people want to be structured into your life in a certain way and if they aren't, they would appreciate it if you'd please seek someone else to direct your love toward. With monogamists, this seems to occur typically when you can't/won't tell them they're the only person you can think about having in your life. Rationally, they might understand that you don't want to dump them or hurt them, but they can't handle the thought that you could be interested in others. Maybe that's natural polygamy, maybe it's jealousy, or maybe it's both. I just wish there was a way around it without having to deal with more than one relationship at a time.
 
.............

No, that's my point. I'm not incapable of finding other people attractive or feeling love for past lovers. I just can't deal with the idea of having to reassure one person that my relationship with another isn't going to take away from my love for them and then go off and not worry that I'm doing something hurtful while having fun with someone else. In my mind I can reason that it's all ok, but when I see a person feeling a little guarded the next time I see her after being out with another woman and she's saying, "no, really I'll be alright," I still feel responsible for her pain on some level.

I understand this. You seem like a kind, thoughtful person which of course is admirable. But somewhere along the way the enlightenment comes that we can't take responsibility for internally generated 'harm' to others. If that makes any sense. It's much different than physically slugging someone over the head with a bat.
We all have our own belief systems and sometimes those beliefs conflict with the realities in life. It's simply impractical (impossible?) to take ownership of the rest of the world's belief systems and any pain that's caused because of conflicts with those. We don't want it, don't intend it (hurt) but also don't have control over someone else's thought process. The power is truly not within us.



serialmonogamist; said:
Monogamy technically refers to marriage, not love.

Well - that may be YOUR definition. I know some people, including members here, who would disagree with that. Language is SUCH a trap !
For some monogamy is a way of living and viewing the world. Because the 'love' we are speaking of here is what most refer to as 'romantic' love, some actually do become blind to other potential 'romantic' love once in love with one person. Not the same 'love' you have for....say....your pet. It has nothing to do with 'marriage' which is nothing more than a legal contract which stipulates (for most) living situations etc.


serialmonogamist; said:
Because I'm trying to figure out a way to reconcile my desire for monogamy with my feelings of confusion at being potentially polyamorous. I don't think wanting to limit myself to one relationship makes me a hypocritical poly. It's just another poly choice, I think.
I think this is just playing with words and confusing the issue - and you.

In it's most basic form, polyamory refers to the ability and openness (recognition) to love (in a romantic way) more than one person. And it's a very natural thing in the majority of humans. But it's been condemned by the powers that be for so many hundreds of years and therefore becomes a conflict when it surfaces. There are few (until recently) resources available for those who discover it within themself to turn to to learn ways to handle it constructively.

It's quite possible, if painful and difficult, to BE (self acknowledge) polyamorous yet still live monogamously because it's easier, more practical or sometimes temporary. That's different than BEING (self identifying) monogamous.

That's how language can confuse so easily. Words have to be understood within the context of the sentence they are used in.


serialmonogamist; said:
Try telling someone monogamous when you start dating that you aren't interested in committing for life. If you say you can't know until later, they might take their chances but then you risk having to be the one to disappoint them and tell them to start their search for a life companion again.

Again, the cultural trap. And again the fallacy of owning someone else's beliefs and actions. Unfortunately the whole concept of commitment (or lack of) has come to be used as an identifier of ethical intent. Which of course is ludicrous !

Instead of looking at relationships in a more realistic manner a majority of society is caught in this programming.

Maybe a little analogy..........

Suppose you are a top gymnast and coach. You meet a wonderful new enthusiast and discover a common passion which draws you together. The 'love' you discover between you is composed of all these parts, mutual respect and admiration, passion for a shared path, desire to pursue it together etc.

The relationship may last for some indeterminate time - years - until finally your love has mastered the skills as far as you can take them. You are blissfully happy - for each other. Happy in the choices you've made. There will always be a bond between you because of what you've shared together.

But he/she now craves additional challenges. Having gained mastery of one thing they discover another. Say.......climbing.

But you're not a climber. And what's more, really have no interest.
Poly says "go climb - and come back and share your excitement with me !"
Mono say - "sorry - I don't climb - no climbing allowed unless you leave me so I can find another gymnast".

Which mode of living makes more sense to YOU ???

GS
 
. . . I'm trying to figure out a way to reconcile my desire for monogamy with my feelings of confusion at being potentially polyamorous. I don't think wanting to limit myself to one relationship makes me a hypocritical poly. It's just another poly choice, I think.

You are confusing yourself unnecessarily. Seeing serial monogamy as a form of polyamory just ain't so, and won't reconcile anything for you.

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart invented the term "polyamory" in a 1990 article she wrote for Green Egg Magazine (the term was included in a glossary sidebar, not the actual article). Here is her definition of the word: "The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."

If you're into definitions and the evolution of the word, you might find this page interesting:
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/polyamory-enters-oxford-english.html

BTW, Polyamorous Percolations, the blog I linked above, is a great resource to learn about poly. Also xeromag: http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html. Maybe doing some reading will help clear up some of your confusion.
 
Last edited:
Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart invented the term "polyamory" in a 1990 article she wrote for Green Egg Magazine (the term was included in a glossary sidebar, not the actual article). Here is her definition of the word: "The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved."

.

Not to nit pick but...


http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=15829757399&topic=17224

In Dec 2010, Alan, who runs the website Polyamory in the Media, did something very interesting. (Incidently, his website is about how p. Check it utolyamory is being covered in the media, and is very cool, even apart from this particular
episode). Check it out:
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/

Alan used search engines on the GoogleBooks site to search for instances of the
word polyamory, polyamorous, polyamorists, etc., as well as French and other
versions of the word. The GoogleBooks search engine lets you search a vast
number of books that have been digitized for specific words and phrases. Alan
did this for the years between 1400 A.D. and 1991. Lo and behold, his efforts
turned up seven specific items prior to the magic year of 1990, including
several earlier than the 1980s - and one as early as 1953! (Check out his
website for the full scoop, including a continuing series of updates on the
matter).

In a single stroke, Alan has demonstrated that the word polyamory and its
various forms was already in existence in the English language - and some other
European languages, at least 47 years before it was allegedly invented in
1990-1992. Way to hang, Alan!
 
You are confusing yourself unnecessarily. Seeing serial monogamy as a form of polyamory just ain't so, and won't reconcile anything for you.
Definitions aren't my major concern. You could say humans are animals so human-human sex is bestiality, but that would just be semantics. My concern is about how to reconcile feelings with behavior in a way that doesn't involve hyprocricy or dishonesty. I think that is more important an issue that whether you're having multiple relationships at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I think practical issues are also important, but the reason I'm here is because I would like to achieve truth in relationships.

I understand this. You seem like a kind, thoughtful person which of course is admirable. But somewhere along the way the enlightenment comes that we can't take responsibility for internally generated 'harm' to others. If that makes any sense. It's much different than physically slugging someone over the head with a bat.
Thanks for your moral support. I have actually thought this for some time. The problem is that humans have this bad habit of treating culture as if it was automatically applicable beyond themselves. To give an extreme example, you can tell someone that you didn't see it as rape when you were taking her to fulfill your desires, but you're still responsible for the internal harm generated for her. That's a bad example because it involves physical body-boundaries, but many people claim emotional boundaries are just as sacred.

We all have our own belief systems and sometimes those beliefs conflict with the realities in life. It's simply impractical (impossible?) to take ownership of the rest of the world's belief systems and any pain that's caused because of conflicts with those. We don't want it, don't intend it (hurt) but also don't have control over someone else's thought process. The power is truly not within us.
The power isn't to control others. It's to empathize. And when we empathize, we give power to others. And when we give that power to others, we also take power for ourselves by inviting their return empathy. This is the basis for many emotional social-contracts and social power, imo, for better or worse.

In it's most basic form, polyamory refers to the ability and openness (recognition) to love (in a romantic way) more than one person. And it's a very natural thing in the majority of humans. But it's been condemned by the powers that be for so many hundreds of years and therefore becomes a conflict when it surfaces. There are few (until recently) resources available for those who discover it within themself to turn to to learn ways to handle it constructively.
My interest is in truth, as I think that is the interest of people who wish to be true to their feelings by pursuing multiple relationships at the same time. If I was interested in monogamy without question, I don't think I would have become interested in a polyamory forum. I wish to have a sexual culture where people can be honest about their feelings and desires, regardless of whether they choose to pursue one, more, or no relationships at a time.

It's quite possible, if painful and difficult, to BE (self acknowledge) polyamorous yet still live monogamously because it's easier, more practical or sometimes temporary. That's different than BEING (self identifying) monogamous.
Exactly, but I think it's more painful to have to BE polyamorous and live monogamy whey you are disavowing your polyamorous nature. I think many monogamists are doing this, simply because they want to believe that having one relationship at a time but multiple relationships in a lifetime is natural.

But you're not a climber. And what's more, really have no interest.
Poly says "go climb - and come back and share your excitement with me !"
Mono say - "sorry - I don't climb - no climbing allowed unless you leave me so I can find another gymnast".

Which mode of living makes more sense to YOU ???
This is my whole point. I think the reality of love and relationships is that you don't lose your place in your heart for someone just because your interests diverge. Yet in monogamy, it is expected that you kill the part of your heart that loved one person to love another. I think that's negative and destructive, even if you don't want to maintain more than one active relationship at a time. This is why it is so important to me to reconcile a polyamorous heart with the desire for a monogamous lifestyle.
 
Serial, while I understand that you mean having more than one partner in your lifetime isn't what you consider true monogamy, you need to understand that if you talk about being poly, people will get misconceptions.

Monogamy in human has never meant only one person in your lifetime. It's very rare among humans. Even before divorce was allowed, people remarried after the death of their spouse. People had affairs. Life long monogamy is rare and when people say "monogamy", that's not what they mean, they mean "serial monogamy". They mean "when I'm with someone, I don't see anyone else". It doesn't matter if the relationship is a few months old or lasts for years.

I think it would be bad for you to present yourself as poly. This isn't how most people understand the word. And you're not part of the minority. As a serial monogamist, you're pretty much the norm. While use a word that requires coming out, explaining stuff and possibly being ostracized while what you are is already what people assume and expect of you?

"Monogamy refers to the state of having only one mate at any one time". I can't even find a place that has a definition talking about one mate for your whole life. I mean, that means marrying the first person you date, and never dating anyone else if you break up. That means if the person dies on your first date, you never see anyone else. That means if you first fall in love as a kid with someone you could never get, you never have a partner ever.
It's very, very limiting, and therefore understandably very rare.

As far as lifelong goes, just be honest about that. Say you're looking for an exclusive but not lifelong relationship. People will understand that much better. And when describing yourself, serial monogamist will be the accepted term, not poly. And even if you think serial monogamy is a subset of poly, it would still be the more accurate and specific term.
 
Serial, while I understand that you mean having more than one partner in your lifetime isn't what you consider true monogamy, you need to understand that if you talk about being poly, people will get misconceptions.
I find it really interesting how divorce was nearly completely forbidden before the laws changed in the 1970s and since then divorce and remarriage have grown so much in popularity. Still, people insist on calling themselves monogamous (and believing it) because of the cultural taboos associated with polyamory (usually just called, "non-monogamy," no?). So I think that there are many many closet polyamorists, who may even be denying it to themselves in order to maintain mono-conformity. Behaviorally, such people may be monogamous, and that's what counts imo. I am just trying to establish the relationship between feelings and behavior and choices. It almost seems in the spirit of "don't ask don't tell" being repealed that more people will start wanting to be more open and honest with each other and themselves instead of living in confused conflict and repression.

Monogamy in human has never meant only one person in your lifetime. It's very rare among humans. Even before divorce was allowed, people remarried after the death of their spouse. People had affairs. Life long monogamy is rare and when people say "monogamy", that's not what they mean, they mean "serial monogamy". They mean "when I'm with someone, I don't see anyone else". It doesn't matter if the relationship is a few months old or lasts for years.
The problem is that the whole distinction between polyamory and serial monogamy rests on symbolically defining your relationships according to what constitutes the boundaries between love, friendship (platonic love?), etc. People seem to always be limiting some aspect of their actions to assert boundaries.

I think it would be bad for you to present yourself as poly. This isn't how most people understand the word. And you're not part of the minority. As a serial monogamist, you're pretty much the norm. While use a word that requires coming out, explaining stuff and possibly being ostracized while what you are is already what people assume and expect of you?
I'm interested in honest living. I'm trying to resolve what seems to be a massive contradiction in sexuality. I'm trying to make sense of why some people's sexuality is respected and others decried. I can't accept pure cultural and moral relativism. I am seeking moral reason.

"Monogamy refers to the state of having only one mate at any one time". I can't even find a place that has a definition talking about one mate for your whole life. I mean, that means marrying the first person you date, and never dating anyone else if you break up. That means if the person dies on your first date, you never see anyone else. That means if you first fall in love as a kid with someone you could never get, you never have a partner ever. It's very, very limiting, and therefore understandably very rare.
There's also this interesting part of the bible that talks about the thought of adultery already being adultery. So I'm wondering if so many people are capable of serial monogamy, what is stopping them from considering other relationships while involved in a current one? Or is there a culture of secrecy and shame that is practically impossible to avoid?

As far as lifelong goes, just be honest about that. Say you're looking for an exclusive but not lifelong relationship. People will understand that much better. And when describing yourself, serial monogamist will be the accepted term, not poly. And even if you think serial monogamy is a subset of poly, it would still be the more accurate and specific term.
Yes, I think you are describing mono-normative culture pretty well. Like I said, though, I'm interested in a slightly deeper cultural level.
 
I find it really interesting how divorce was nearly completely forbidden before the laws changed in the 1970s and since then divorce and remarriage have grown so much in popularity.

Hey, FYI, I'm a genealogist and have researched numerous civil records of quite a number of families (for myself and other people) -- enough to tell you that many of our ancestors got divorced wa-a-a-ay before the 1970s! True, divorce was frowned upon, but not exactly forbidden -- there were always ways around it. My ggparents staged fake photographs of my ggfather with another woman (a family friend) even though the split was amicable, just to get around a law that required infidelity to sue for divorce. This was in the early 1920s. Believe me, divorce was much more common than you think, even among the working class (meaning that it wasn't always just for the privileged rich). And often couples split unofficially and just started families with other people. I myself, when my divorce is final, will be the fifth generation divorced in my own family. I have traced divorces that took place in the 18th century. So, it actually is not such a recent development in modern life.

There's also this interesting part of the bible that talks about the thought of adultery already being adultery.
What does that have to do with anything? I do not see the relevance of this statement.
 
Last edited:
Hey, FYI, I'm a genealogist and have researched numerous civil records of quite a number of families (for myself and other people) -- enough to tell you that many of our ancestors got divorced wa-a-a-ay before the 1970s! True, divorce was frowned upon, but not exactly forbidden -- there were always ways around it. My ggparents staged fake photographs of my ggfather with another woman (a family friend) even though the split was amicable, just to get around a law that required infidelity to sue for divorce. This was in the early 1920s. Believe me, it was much more common than you think, even among the working class. And often couples split unofficially and just started families with other people. I myself, when my divorce is final, will be the fifth generation divorced in my own family. I have traced divorces that took place in the 18th century. So, it actually is not such a recent development in modern life.
That's interesting. I knew it was allowed in special cases but I didn't know the special cases were commonly simulated to justify common divorce. I've also seen many divorces in my family and out, but after doing it myself, the illusion of it broke down for me. Before I got married, though that marriage was just a piece of paper but after getting divorced I realized that was just a piece of paper too. Everything comes down to the actual people and the underlying relationships, imo.

What does that have to do with anything? I do not see the relevance of this statement.
Because people who feel that they are sinning by having sexual fantasies should clear their consciences by embracing polyamory and injecting ethics into their fantasy lives, I think, or at least they should have that option even if they don't want to have simultaneous multiple relationships. Also, I think many people get dishonored as a parent of their ex's children because their ex feels the need to degrade them as a show of preference for a new partner. You don't have to keep sleeping with someone to honor them as the parent of your children, imo - and honoring is a form of love, I think.
 
Because people who feel that they are sinning by having sexual fantasies should clear their consciences by embracing polyamory and injecting ethics into their fantasy lives, I think, or at least they should have that option even if they don't want to have simultaneous multiple relationships. Also, I think many people get dishonored as a parent of their ex's children because their ex feels the need to degrade them as a show of preference for a new partner. You don't have to keep sleeping with someone to honor them as the parent of your children, imo - and honoring is a form of love, I think.
Hello. I don't think a lot of what you've posted has made much sense to me, but this paragraph is especially odd. I don't think it's that common for people to feel that fantasizing is a sin, thankfully. That would be a rather immature and unevolved view (I generally feel sorry for anyone who believes in sin, anyway).

The second part of your paragraph also reflects immaturity. While divorce is difficult and people do snipe at each other, most people I know who have been through it don't trash their exes in front of the kids and do "honor" them. It seems like you have been surrounded by nastiness, negativity, and disingenuous people.
 
Hello. I don't think a lot of what you've posted has made much sense to me, but this paragraph is especially odd. I don't think it's that common for people to feel that fantasizing is a sin, thankfully. That would be a rather immature and unevolved view (I generally feel sorry for anyone who believes in sin, anyway).
I googled the quote from the bible if you're interested for reference sake:
<< Matthew 5:28 >>

New International Version (©1984)
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The relevant point, imo, is that even when people manage to control their physical interaction with people other than their partners, they may still think about it. To many people this is "sinful" within monogamy even if they don't use the word "sin." What I'm trying to point out is that if polyamory isn't sinful (e.g. polygamy is practiced in the bible) then there should be ways to ethically regulate "adultery of the heart." You seem like the type of person who is going to react negatively to any form of lofty religious-based language, so try to just think of this in terms of the everyday struggles people go through trying to be faithful to their partners, whether in monogamy or polyamory.

The second part of your paragraph also reflects immaturity. While divorce is difficult and people do snipe at each other, most people I know who have been through it don't trash their exes in front of the kids and do "honor" them. It seems like you have been surrounded by nastiness, negativity, and disingenuous people.
Maturity is scarce in my experience and seemingly mature people are often immature in many ways as well. Whether you trash you ex in front of you kids or not, the trashing you do of them in your mind is dishonoring them if it's not constructive criticism. People should continue to love their parents children, imo, if for no other reason than because their children do. I would call this a form of polyamory or polygamy that people attempt to repress by symbolically partitioning themselves from their "ex feelings" for the person they're divorced from. I think a mature honest attitude toward divorce would involve honoring the continuing commitment of co-parenting. If you think people are mature enough to do this, however, try approaching any of your divorced friends with kids about about post-divorce parenting as a continuing form of marriage and see if they don't react with negativity and rejection toward the idea that their marriage isn't completely dissolved. Really, it's just about boundary-assertion for many people.
 
try to just think of this in terms of the everyday struggles people go through trying to be faithful to their partners, whether in monogamy or polyamory.
You say this as if it is automatic and expected for everyone to struggle with fidelity. This has not been my experience. When I love someone, I don't feel any struggle to be faithful to them. My love sustains me and there is no reason not to be faithful, and I've never felt any temptation to cheat. But I'm a very loyal person, and it comes easily to me to honor my commitments. I don't struggle with this at all.

Maturity is scarce in my experience and seemingly mature people are often immature in many ways as well.
Then I feel sorry for you about that. Maybe you need to expand your social circle.
 
SM, you said earlier in this thread that you have some confusion and want to reconcile some conflicting feelings within yourself. I think you are just running around in circles and confusing yourself more -- calling monogamy a form of polyamory, trying to apply the Bible to modern relationships for some strange reason, verbalizing your disappointment in people... your arguments are very confusing, complex, and a bit convoluted. I honestly think it sounds like you need break, some kind of therapeutic or relaxing retreat. You seem so overly occupied with figuring things out, but lots of times clarity comes when we walk away from a problem for a bit.
 
Last edited:
SM, you said earlier in this thread that you have some confusion and want to reconcile some conflicting feelings within yourself. I think you are just running around in circles and confusing yourself more -- your arguments are very confusing, complex, and a bit convoluted. I honestly think it sounds like you need break, some kind of therapeutic or relaxing retreat. You seem so overly occupied with figuring things out, but lots of times clarity comes when we walk away from a problem for a bit.


This just described pretty much what an LSD-trip is like (minus the black light and Dark Side of the Moon). (I snipped the parts about poly just because this kind of rumination can be fixated on any topic).
 
marriage and divorce as seen by serialmonogamist

..........I don't really believe in divorce so polyamory seems like a solution to my ethical dilemma.

Ooooooooo - k

So what DO you believe is the solution for relationships that have gone.........toxic. When it is obvious that being together is no longer in ANYONE's best interest ?

I think you have to be careful about such sweeping statements.

GS
 
SM, you said earlier in this thread that you have some confusion and want to reconcile some conflicting feelings within yourself. I think you are just running around in circles and confusing yourself more -- calling monogamy a form of polyamory, trying to apply the Bible to modern relationships for some strange reason, verbalizing your disappointment in people... your arguments are very confusing, complex, and a bit convoluted. I honestly think it sounds like you need break, some kind of therapeutic or relaxing retreat. You seem so overly occupied with figuring things out, but lots of times clarity comes when we walk away from a problem for a bit.
I guess you're just being concerned and not just insulting me as being crazy in an indirect way. I'm surprised you and others who have reacted negatively to me don't see anything in the kinds of cultural analysis I do. Granted the bible is controversial and tends to evoke strong reactions in many directions, but it has been such a major basis for so many cultural traditions, I value it as a source of insight into culture. Maybe you disagree with the idea that fantasizing about someone else's partner is a form of adultery, but surely you can at least appreciate the idea of considering the ethics of non-physical behavior?

Also, to be clear I wasn't crudely calling monogamy a form of polyamory. I was exploring the level of feelings vs. the level of outward behavior and I'm thinking that many monogamous people have polyamorous feelings/tendencies. Think about the discussion that's gone on regarding homosexuality as an inborn thing. Just as you can feel gay but behave heterosexually, surely people can feel polyamorous and behave monogamously, and I think many people do. Why is this not a good polyamory topic for discussion?

You say this as if it is automatic and expected for everyone to struggle with fidelity. This has not been my experience. When I love someone, I don't feel any struggle to be faithful to them. My love sustains me and there is no reason not to be faithful, and I've never felt any temptation to cheat. But I'm a very loyal person, and it comes easily to me to honor my commitments. I don't struggle with this at all.
It is a theme in a lot of popular media and fiction, for one thing. Second, even if you don't have any trouble remaining faithful, why would you have less potential to be attracted to someone just because it would be unfaithful to your partner(s) to be? Humans define relationships in order to manage social relationships, but aren't there underlying feelings that defy control on some level?

Then I feel sorry for you about that. Maybe you need to expand your social circle.
It's more than I am fundamentally conscious of people as being complex beings. Everyone has inner immaturities. Mature behavior requires the ability to resist potential immature behavior but the potential remains for everyone, doesn't it? If you look closely, you can recognize how repressed feelings and desires manifest themselves in other ways. If you dislike these kinds of psychological ideas, you may disagree, I think.
 
I guess you're just being concerned and not just insulting me as being crazy in an indirect way. I'm surprised you and others who have reacted negatively to me don't see anything in the kinds of cultural analysis I do.
I'm not "reacting negatively;" I just disagree with most of what you say. Furthermore, your "cultural analysis" doesn't make much sense to me, either. It has come across as convoluted and a bit unsound, and could seem a bit crazy to some, actually, but that's not an insult. It just seems like you are following your thoughts in a circle that will get you nowhere - that's why I suggested taking a break.

Maybe you disagree with the idea that fantasizing about someone else's partner is a form of adultery, but surely you can at least appreciate the idea of considering the ethics of non-physical behavior?
No, I don't "surely" appreciate it -- I don't even know what you mean here? Are you saying now that someone's thinking can be called non-physical behavior and judged to be ethical or not? Ethics and morals are subjective and culturally-based, anyway. Religious views of relationships don't affect me, as I don't put much credence into religion or religions telling me what to do in my relationships or in my bedroom.

Also, to be clear I wasn't crudely calling monogamy a form of polyamory. I was exploring the level of feelings vs. the level of outward behavior and I'm thinking that many monogamous people have polyamorous feelings/tendencies. . . . Why is this not a good polyamory topic for discussion?
That is not what you've been saying. You have plainly stated that you view serial monogamy as a form of polyamory. Numerous people have told you that that is not what polyamory is, even considering the fact that there are many ways to practice polyamory. Polyamory is about simultaneously having more than one loving relationship at a time. Of course, there may be times when a poly person has only one relationship happening, but the difference between them and a mono person is that they are still open to finding and cultivating additional relationships, while a mono is devoted to one only. Now, you seem to be saying that that if a mono person has attractions or thoughts about being with others, they are poly, even though they would never pursue a poly relationship.

. . .even if you don't have any trouble remaining faithful, why would you have less potential to be attracted to someone just because it would be unfaithful to your partner(s) to be?
It is natural to have attractions to people, but that doesn't mean there is automatically a temptation to cheat. In my marriage, we acknowledged attractions, but there was never any possibility that either of us would act on those attractions -- we're human and just let it be. We never struggled to be faithful, either, because of attractions. While I was married and monogamous, just because someone came into my life and I found them attractive, that didn't mean I was then polyamorous. Attractions are a part of life and happen every day.
 
Last edited:
Ooooooooo - k

So what DO you believe is the solution for relationships that have gone.........toxic. When it is obvious that being together is no longer in ANYONE's best interest ?

I think you have to be careful about such sweeping statements.
I suppose I could be more careful, but once I figure out something for myself, I have trouble presenting it apologetically and with much attention for some other culture. Do you, for example, enjoy apologetically explaining your poly views and choices to mono-normative people?

What I really mean about divorce is that I don't think a relationship really ends as "dissolution" implies. This was the impression I had of what divorce was supposed to mean before I did it. What I find is that divorce is more like a second marital contract regulating the individuation of communal property, childcare responsibilities, forbidding harassment, etc. If the relationship was completely dissolved, there wouldn't be anything to regulate with a contract, so it is a social contract that defines a new relationship. The reason this probably sounds creepy to hear me say is that it sounds like someone who is trying to maintain ties with someone else who doesn't want them, which would be sort of rape-ish. The problem is that relationships stay a part of you for as long as you remember them, so there are rituals people try to use to give themselves a sense of control over the life-choices they've made and are stuck with in one way or another.

I find that whenever a new relationships begins/ends, I have a closed-off period when I don't really want to seek out anyone new. A honeymoon period during NRE, and a mourning period when a relationship ends. So no matter how much I intellectually shy away from poly-fi, I have my poly-fi tendencies come very naturally at certain times. Imagining that out of my two relationships, one would end, that would in practicality translate to a period of freely chosen monogamy.
I really enjoy reading the words of someone who is so aware of their natural feelings in reflection that they can rethink categorical assumptions about themselves based purely on the logic of definitions. I am also aware of such natural monogamous feelings, which is what attracts me to monogamy, I think, even though I have such a strong interest in coming to terms with the human potential to love more than one person in life (whether at different moments or simultaneously).
 
I'm not "reacting negatively;" I just disagree with most of what you say. Furthermore, your "cultural analysis" doesn't make much sense to me, either. It has come across as convoluted and a bit unsound, and could seem a bit crazy to some, actually, but that's not an insult. It just seems like you are following your thoughts in a circle that will get you nowhere - that's why I suggested taking a break.
I don't know why I'm getting defensive when you're just stating your impression honestly. I guess I just don't like the idea of being "convoluted, unsound, and a bit crazy to some." I can understand that you disagree with things I say, but I think my analytical reasoning is sound enough to be a basis for reasonable discussion and I don't see how my thoughts are going in circles - maybe you'd care to explain in more detail/depth. It feels like you might be saying I should "take a break" because you don't want me pursuing these ideas on this forum for some reason. If that's not the case, and you really just see that as a way for me to reach greater clarity, thanks but I actually like working through these ideas philosophically. I'm hoping to get more constructive insights from people who are comfortable reflecting on their inner and outer experiences.

No, I don't "surely" appreciate it -- I don't even know what you mean here? Are you saying now that someone's thinking can be called non-physical behavior and judged to be ethical or not? Ethics and morals are subjective and culturally-based, anyway. Religious views of relationships don't affect me, as I don't put much credence into religion or religions telling me what to do in my relationships or in my bedroom.
Ethics and morals are ultimately at the individual level, imo, no matter what people think about them being something external and imposed. It is always up to individuals to decide what they believe and whether or how to incorporate ethics or morality into their judgment and decision-making.

As for the physical vs. non-physical, I think that is important regardless of anything else. Feelings are one thing and actions toward others are another. Sometimes you may think about saying or doing something to someone but then choose not to for some reason. I think it's hard on people to have to keep feelings a secret or engage in denial out of fear of humiliation or judgment. If someone's been indoctrinated into cultural beliefs and norms about monogamy that lead to them feeling shame and self-hate for feelings that don't seem to conform to what's normal, that's a problem imo. If you're feeling like you can't feel poly and live mono because there's something wrong with feeling one way and acting another, that could also cause such stress.

That is not what you've been saying. You have plainly stated that you view serial monogamy as a form of polyamory.
Oh, right. But my whole point is that serial monogamy may be monogamy in terms of outward behavior but in terms of feelings, you have to have the capacity to love more than one person to be able to end one relationship and begin another. A truly monogamous person would stay broken-hearted for life and never fall in love anew. This was always how I imagined Blue Roses from the Glass Menagerie living after the guy she fell in love with broke the horn off her glass unicorn. Such true monogamy may be a cultural fiction or an unattainable ideal, but I think it does exist as a cultural ideal - one that has been strongly criticized and lost popularity, like the idea of remaining a virgin until marriage or reserving sex only for procreation.

Numerous people have told you that that is not what polyamory is, even considering the fact that there are many ways to practice polyamory. Polyamory is about simultaneously having more than one loving relationship at a time.
If you limit the meaning of polyamory to the practice of simultaneous multiple relationships, what do you call the capacity to love multiple people when you're not doing it? Wouldn't that be like saying a man who feels attracted to men isn't gay or bi as long as he's not acting on his attraction?

Of course, there may be times when a poly person has only one relationship happening, but the difference between them and a mono person is that they are still open to finding and cultivating additional relationships, while a mono is devoted to one only. Now, you seem to be saying that that if a mono person has attractions or thoughts about being with others, they are poly, even though they would never pursue a poly relationship.
Yes, and I think repressing polyamorous feelings may be as fundamental to mono culture as homophobia has been found to be for heteronormative culture. This is of course open for debate, but surely it's not a ridiculous idea to discuss.

It is natural to have attractions to people, but that doesn't mean there is automatically a temptation to cheat. In my marriage, we acknowledged attractions, but there was never any possibility that either of us would act on those attractions -- we're human and just let it be. We never struggled to be faithful, either, because of attractions. While I was married and monogamous, just because someone came into my life and I found them attractive, that didn't mean I was then polyamorous. Attractions are a part of life and happen every day.
I remember reading this about your marriage in another thread. I agree there is a difference between feeling attraction and the desire to cheat. I think it was great that you were able to honestly reflect and talk about this in your marriage. It is something I am only slowly learning to do, because I have always felt a strong desire to protect my partner's feelings from fearing that I won't cheat on them just because I found someone attractive. I think they might have felt the tension and taken it as a desire to cheat or just me being secretive in general. I find it hard to come to terms with the idea that people tell each other that they would never think of being with another person to make their partner feel good, but that it would be deceptive. I have known people who preferred not to be told about their partner's feelings and activities just to avoid jealousy, and I regret that I considered it legitimate to sacrifice honesty for a comfortable facade. On the other hand, it takes a lot of depth and maturity to accept the knowledge that your partner can feel attraction for others and still have faith in them when they tell you they want to remain monogamous. I can see both sides even though honesty seems more liberating when people can deal with truth and consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top