Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Poly Relationships Corner

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-08-2010, 08:14 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,362
Default

THANK YOU!

I get it now.

Yes-I totally agree 100%!!!
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-08-2010, 08:42 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Cap, interesting that you call it symetry, I call it balance and imbalance.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-08-2010, 08:45 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
Cap, interesting that you call it symmetry, I call it balance and imbalance.
Definition of symmetry: (Wikipedia)

Symmetry generally conveys two primary meanings. The first is an imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically pleasing proportionality and balance;[1][2] such that it reflects beauty or perfection. The second meaning is a precise and well-defined concept of balance or "patterned self-similarity" that can be demonstrated or proved according to the rules of a formal system: by geometry, through physics or otherwise.

(Unfortunately, I was unable to find a Wiki definition of "balance" that uses the word "symmetry", thereby exhibiting a lack of meta-symmetry between the two definitions.)

Last edited by NeonKaos; 05-08-2010 at 08:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-08-2010, 09:25 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default For me, symmetry and balance are two different things in polyamory

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
Definition of symmetry: (Wikipedia)

Symmetry generally conveys two primary meanings. The first is an imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically pleasing proportionality and balance;[1][2] such that it reflects beauty or perfection. The second meaning is a precise and well-defined concept of balance or "patterned self-similarity" that can be demonstrated or proved according to the rules of a formal system: by geometry, through physics or otherwise.

(Unfortunately, I was unable to find a Wiki definition of "balance" that uses the word "symmetry", thereby exhibiting a lack of meta-symmetry between the two definitions.)
The basic property of symmetry, geometrically, is that you can apply a transformation, and the objects looks the same afterwards. A balanced configuration can be highly asymmetrical, and I don't want balanced principles for polyamory, I want them symmetrical. So there is a real identity between you and me, as far as the principles go. The balancing enters not when formulating the rules, but when applying them. If you stick blindly to symmetry then, you will probably do more harm than good, for example like "he wasn't telling me all the important facts, so then i won't be telling him either."

Last edited by capricorny; 05-08-2010 at 09:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-08-2010, 10:25 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Soo what every one is saying is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I agree with that
__________________

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

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-10-2010, 08:07 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
The basic property of symmetry, geometrically, is that you can apply a transformation, and the objects looks the same afterwards. A balanced configuration can be highly asymmetrical, and I don't want balanced principles for polyamory, I want them symmetrical. So there is a real identity between you and me, as far as the principles go. The balancing enters not when formulating the rules, but when applying them. If you stick blindly to symmetry then, you will probably do more harm than good, for example like "he wasn't telling me all the important facts, so then i won't be telling him either."
Oh my, I don't think I follow at all ! LOL I read it a couple of times too.

I think I want the objects to look different afterwards... that is far as I understand. heh. sorry,
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-10-2010, 09:18 AM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default Basic symmetry: Looks the same from different viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
Oh my, I don't think I follow at all ! LOL I read it a couple of times too.

I think I want the objects to look different afterwards... that is far as I understand. heh. sorry,
OK - let's take the simple and all-important transformation then: Change of viewpoints.

Take traditional polygamy: He is allowed to have several wives, maybe take another one. The wives are not.
From his viewpoint: YOU are NOT allowed to
From hers: You are allowed to.
Basic difference, violation of symmetry.

And the theme here, something similar:
He: You are not allowed to have another dick than mine.
She: You are allowed to have another pussy than mine.
Symmetry violation

Or, paraphrased from another active thread:
She1: Me and Y have gotten into a romantic engagement, and now we try to involve She2, Y's partner in a poly relationship, but she doesn't know about the engagement. We have already spent the night together, the three of us.
She2: I think She1 is becoming a great friend and play partner of mine!
Symmetry here?

Or, maybe less evident, paraphrased from yet another one:
She: I'm scared as hell about poly. My basic position is that we need to agree on very high security/safety standards. I accept your need for multiple partners, but I have a need for safety rules.
He: "Because rules make life safe, and that's why insecure people need them. While, i don't think that's fair, it's inevitable really." I don't really accept your need for rules, and it's your duty to work on that, but I'll keep them for now.
Shorter:
She: I accept your needs, and here are mine.
He: Here are my needs. I don't really accept yours, it's not fair.
Symmetry violation 1: He is given a right to needs that she is denied.
Violation 2: She is straightforward about her position, he isn't really straightforward about his real position.

Last edited by capricorny; 05-10-2010 at 09:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-18-2010, 10:04 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

*grabs her spinning head*

As far as I can tell, your "symmetry" refers to who's allowed to do what, and requires that each person be allowed to do the same things.

It seems to get sticky when you talk about needs. People like to use the phrase "I need you to -----" because it sounds like an "I" statement. But really it's a "you" statement, a nice-sounding way of saying "You need to -----"

It's fair to have your own needs, i.e. what you require independently as an individual, in and of yourself ("I need to -----"). I don't believe it's equally fair to have needs "on behalf" of another person ("You need to -----").

So it's fair to say "I need to only be in relationships where I'm the primary partner." But it's not fair to say "Because I need to be the primary partner, you're only allowed to date other women on Tuesday nights under a half-moon on even days of the month."

You have the right to communicate what your personal needs are, whether or not your needs are being met, engage your partner in finding a compromise so that both your needs can be met, and to leave that relationship if a solution cannot be found. I don't feel that you have the right to dictate your partner's behaviour under the guise of "meeting your needs." Bottom-line, it's your own responsibility to meet your needs, not your partner's.
__________________
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
Reply

Tags
double standards, one penis policy, triads

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 12:54 PM.