Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-07-2011, 11:22 AM
zylya zylya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 77
Default

To me, what you're describing is polyamory. To me, it's the ability to love more than one person. I believe that all humans are naturally polyamorous, and monogamy and non-monogamy are relationship SYSTEMS, to which we have preference, based on a whole host of factors that are unrelated to that ability to love more than one. As an example I know that I'm perfectly capable of being in a monogamous relationship, I just don't want to. I have before, and enjoyed it, but it just doesn't interest me so much any more - I prefer the freedom. But I still believe that all people are emotionally capable (nature) of loving more than one, but the whole of the rest of our lives (nurture) determine whether we tend to monogamous or non-monogamous relationships. There are people who can do both, and some that mix the two (polyfi for example), since it's more of a sliding scale than two separate and opposite points.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-07-2011, 11:16 PM
OldGuy OldGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
To me, what you're describing is polyamory. To me, it's the ability to love more than one person. I believe that all humans are naturally polyamorous
I like that perspective.

Let me tell you about a (real life) couple that I know of. They've been married for just under 40 years now. One aspect of their relationship is that they are free to have sexual/romantic relationships with other people as long as they are completely honest and open about it with each other.

Now, in the 44 or so years that they have known each other, neither of them have had sex with other people, or had poly relationships with other people (admittedly, they could've been lying to me. I don't know why they would though).

So, what does this mean?

Are they naturally poly, but have never met anyone that they have had a serious interest in? Are they naturally poly, but don't want to deal with the complications that come with acting out their desires? Are they naturally poly, but have no interest in acting out on their desires due to (ingrained) learned behaviour? Or (this is what I think) are they pathologically incabable of anything but monogamy? These are all rhetoricals btw.

I believe that a minority of people are naturally monogamous, another minority are naturally polyamorous...and everybody else is in the middle somewhere.

Human sexuality is really f*cking diverse. Why is it that some people enjoy being covered in feces, while other people don't? Why is it that some people enjoy dressing up in diapers, while other people don't? Why is it that some people enjoy having sex with morbidly obese people, while other people don't? Maybe I find the idea of covering fat people in feces while wearing a diaper on my head unappealing because I'm "sexually repressed"...hmm?

Secondly, from a biological perspective, the feelings of love and the desire for sex are chemical based. Perhaps because of this, some people are physiologically built for monogamy while others are not.

Anyways, that's my 2.
Quote:
Well-rounded ?
That's the word. I'm sticking with fidelitiflexible though. It rolls off the tongue.

Last edited by OldGuy; 11-07-2011 at 11:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-08-2011, 12:34 AM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
Are they naturally poly, but have never met anyone that they have had a serious interest in? Are they naturally poly, but don't want to deal with the complications that come with acting out their desires? Are they naturally poly, but have no interest in acting out on their desires due to (ingrained) learned behaviour? Or (this is what I think) are they pathologically incabable of anything but monogamy? These are all rhetoricals btw.
???

Why not pose what would seem to me to be another obvious rhetorical option -- Are they naturally mono, but open-minded enough that they never cared to close the door on poly as a possibility for each other? That seems to me the most likely answer, really.

And why on earth use a loaded term like "pathologically"? What about monogamy, or about loving in one particular way period, deserves to be called a pathology, or in simpler language a disease????
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-08-2011, 09:40 AM
zylya zylya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
I like that perspective.

Let me tell you about a (real life) couple that I know of. They've been married for just under 40 years now. One aspect of their relationship is that they are free to have sexual/romantic relationships with other people as long as they are completely honest and open about it with each other.

Now, in the 44 or so years that they have known each other, neither of them have had sex with other people, or had poly relationships with other people (admittedly, they could've been lying to me. I don't know why they would though).

So, what does this mean?

Are they naturally poly, but have never met anyone that they have had a serious interest in? Are they naturally poly, but don't want to deal with the complications that come with acting out their desires? Are they naturally poly, but have no interest in acting out on their desires due to (ingrained) learned behaviour? Or (this is what I think) are they pathologically incabable of anything but monogamy? These are all rhetoricals btw.
The problem for us here as commentators, is that all we know about them is that they've got a non-monogamous arrangement. We don't know whether they were looking or not, and we don't know how much they wanted it or not. As an example, I'm with someone at the moment, we've both had other short-term relationships, but at the moment, neither of us is seeing anyone else. That doesn't make us monogamous though, no more than being single makes you celibate.

The fact is poly works in different ways for all sorts of people, because it's literally every relationship system that's NOT monogamy, if they've not promised to be sexually and romantically exclusive then they're not monogamous.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-08-2011, 04:34 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
One aspect of their relationship is that they are free to have sexual/romantic relationships with other people as long as they are completely honest and open about it with each other.

Now, in the 44 or so years that they have known each other, neither of them have had sex with other people, or had poly relationships with other people (admittedly, they could've been lying to me. I don't know why they would though).

So, what does this mean?

Are they naturally poly, but have never met anyone that they have had a serious interest in? Are they naturally poly, but don't want to deal with the complications that come with acting out their desires? Are they naturally poly, but have no interest in acting out on their desires due to (ingrained) learned behaviour? Or (this is what I think) are they pathologically incabable of anything but monogamy? These are all rhetoricals btw.
Or maybe for them, they're just people for whom being poly or mono is not the issue. Perhaps, as for many others (myself included), they view polyamory and monogamy not as something to identify as, but simply relationship structures that they can choose if and when it feels right. Perhaps they didn't need to wrestle with the "am I poly" question, and that knowing the option was available to them was satisfying enough for them.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

Last edited by nycindie; 11-08-2011 at 06:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-09-2011, 06:46 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

I am amused.

It's funny when people are like "I'm this way. How does that label me?"

I guess I see labels as being quick reference-cards, descriptive but not prescriptive.

At the end of the day, even "polyamorous" is a loaded label that means different things to everyone who uses it. There are polyamorous people in monogamous relationships, there are monogamous people in polyamorous relationships, and everything in between.

I would say that if you're dating someone new and you're currently single, you don't need to label yourself right of the bat. When you see it going somewhere, then bring up your openness to, but lack of requirement of, a polyamorous relationship. You're in a good position: if the person is 100% mono and wouldn't consider poly, then you win. If the person is 100% poly and wouldn't consider poly, then you win. If, like most people, the person is undecided or has not considered the possibility, you can explore it together.

For the record, my signature predates this post by a good year or so
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-09-2011, 12:53 PM
OldGuy OldGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
And why on earth use a loaded term like "pathologically"?
I honestly meant "psychologically".

Auto-insert issue on Word. Oops.
Quote:
Or maybe for them, they're just people for whom being poly or mono is not the issue. Perhaps, as for many others (myself included), they view polyamory and monogamy not as something to identify as, but simply relationship structures that they can choose if and when it feels right. Perhaps they didn't need to wrestle with the "am I poly" question, and that knowing the option was available to them was satisfying enough for them.
That could be it. Perhaps they don't over-think these kind of things. Seems to be healthy.

If I'm going to be completely honest here, I wasn't actually expecting any serious answers to that part of my post.

Quote:
I guess I see labels as being quick reference-cards, descriptive but not prescriptive.
What do you prefer as an alternative to labels? How are things defined?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
definitions, terminology

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:48 PM.