Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-09-2010, 01:07 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamala View Post
Well, then you have both misunderstood me I don't see how there can be any disrespect in a question
There was no disrespect in your question, or in your intent. I was pointing out that people who DO know me that believe that I am basically compromising "until the right person comes along" and that they could possibly be that right person are disrespecting me, my partners and my relationships. or that make sweeping statement along those lines about what polyamory REALLY is. Sometimes these are couched in terms of exploratory questions intending to challenge and question without respect.

Does that make sense now?


Quote:
Originally Posted by kamala View Post
how did you come to know that you were happiest being polyamorous? What led up to the decision to finally identify yourself that way?
Monogamy never ever felt right to me, ever since my teen years, and I spent a long time struggling with it, doing stupid things, hating myself, beating myself up about it, and definitely thinking I was a bad person.

I don't think there was a decision made to finally say I was poly... in one of my more destructive periods my partner essentially hit me over the head with a newspaper saying, angrily "Maybe THIS is what you are!" - it was an ad for a lecture in our area by Deborah Anapol...

So at least I had a name for it. There then followed a prolonged period of trying to crawl out of the emotional abyss that I was in.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-10-2010, 06:34 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamala View Post
"I want to try this awesome thing, meet new people, learn some new things, experiment etc etc" versus "I already know this person is not going to be enough for me, just by sheer virtue of them being only one person, so I may as well just be honest and not even try being monogamous"

The latter seems cynical because you have already decided that there is this inherent lack...
It's sort of like chocolate cake. Chocolate cake is absolutely delicious, I really love chocolate cake. But no matter how good a chocolate cake might be, even if it's the best chocolate cake in the world, I would still want to include other foods in my diet. This isn't because of an inherent lack of chocolate cake, but because I am not a chocolate-cake-ivore.

Pandas, on the other hand, are bamboo-ivores, and they never care for anything else. This isn't because bamboo is some kind of wonder food, in fact it's just grass. But pandas have evolved to be capable of obtaining all their required nutrients from a single plant.

That being said, while I am "theoretically" poly in that I feel it's how I'm wired, I'm also a solitary sort who was always happy when single, and never felt like I needed to be with someone in order to feel complete or to have my needs met. I meet my own needs. But I would date, always open to the possibilities of something more growing from those casual relationships, and one of them happened to grow into the wonderful marriage I now share with my husband. So now that I'm married, I've just extended attitude to other people, and if it grows then it grows, and if it doesn't then it doesn't.
__________________
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
  #23  
Old 04-10-2010, 11:28 AM
kamala kamala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Deepest Darkest
Posts: 51
Default

Aaaah... so many of the world's problems would be easier if we all decided to use cake-metaphors to explain our positions
I suppose the difficulty is coming to find out what sort of a creature you are - an omnivore or... a panda
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-10-2010, 03:28 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
Pandas, on the other hand, are bamboo-ivores, and they never care for anything else. This isn't because bamboo is some kind of wonder food, in fact it's just grass. But pandas have evolved to be capable of obtaining all their required nutrients from a single plant.

.
I think I just found my new spirit animal
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-10-2010, 05:51 PM
saudade saudade is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 139
Default My 2 cents (and some commentary on the awesome)

First, acknowledging the awesome:

Quote:
I have a wife who 100% fullfill my "needs". My problem is I have more to give. Its the only way I can explain it.
@Ariakas: That's one of the wisest statements I've seen on this entire forum. Thanks! (If you're feeling up to it, you might want to write an article on those words.)

Quote:
Monogamy never ever felt right to me, ever since my teen years, and I spent a long time struggling with it, doing stupid things, hating myself, beating myself up about it, and definitely thinking I was a bad person
@CielDuMatin: I could have written those words, verbatim! Good to know I'm not the only one...

Quote:
It's sort of like chocolate cake. Chocolate cake is absolutely delicious, I really love chocolate cake. But no matter how good a chocolate cake might be, even if it's the best chocolate cake in the world, I would still want to include other foods in my diet. This isn't because of an inherent lack of chocolate cake, but because I am not a chocolate-cake-ivore.

Pandas, on the other hand, are bamboo-ivores, and they never care for anything else. This isn't because bamboo is some kind of wonder food, in fact it's just grass. But pandas have evolved to be capable of obtaining all their required nutrients from a single plant.
@SC: You're a genius. That's going into my bag of tricks for explaining poly. Thanks!

Now, for all of Kamala's q's (which are appreciated, in a debate/philosophy conversation context!):

Quote:
Do you think that people that have been hurt, or cheated on/betrayed or themselves done the cheating and betraying, are those people more likely to turn to polyamory as a sort of resignation to this less than ideal part of human nature? Or were you all well functioning monogamists who decided to move forward to polyamory as something positive, something expansive?
Like CielDuMatin, whom I quoted above, I was not at all a 'well-functioning monogamist'. In high school (before I knew about poly) I kept finding myself in situations where, no matter how wonderful what I had with my boyfriend was, I kept falling for close friends too. Once I had the vocabulary, I was able to stop thinking of myself as a bad monogamist, and able to start seeing myself as a good polyamorist, and it made a world of difference.

That said, I do think my capacity to love is something positive and expansive-- it's so expansive it couldn't fit in a monogamous framework! I don't think my poly tendencies are anything other than one ideal (not the only ideal) aspect of human nature; it's just that that aspect doesn't fit well in the dominant lovestyle.

Quote:
Are polyamorists just less generous when they come to assessing the human capacity for devotion to just one? Does that jeopardize the spirit of plurality and openness that I’ve seen on these boards…?
I completely acknowledge that many people can experience happiness in a monogamous relationship. I also completely acknowledge that some people can only be happy romantically in a monogamous relationship. However, that doesn't prevent me from noticing that the reverse is also true. Some people on each side of this situation have trouble acknowledging the other view. There are also lots of religious individuals who have trouble with atheism, and atheists who have trouble with religious belief... members of opposing political parties... citizens of nations at war... The human brain does not see multiple sides of an issue without effort, no matter its starting point.

Quote:
I mean, how many people here would be happy being monogamous if exactly the 100% right person came along, that fulfilled all your needs etc? And if that's the case, is your choosing to be polyamorous a gesture of bad faith in that being a possibility?
Kamala, that's an interesting question. Its phrasing sets up the proposition that finding one person who "fulfilled all your needs" would be preferable to having two or seven people who did, or doing so all by yourself. To me, it seems most important for everyone involved to feel happy/successful/fulfilled (whatever word they'd like to use).
__________________
"I was thorough when I looked for you, and I feel justified lying in your arms." - Chasing Amy
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:48 AM.