Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-12-2010, 04:19 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,386
Default

I see what you mean. I see my husband as more "open" than "poly". He is the same in other aspects, for instance when I turned vegetarian he didn't, but he had to adapt to the fact I wasn't eating animals anymore (just like I had to "adapt" to the fact that he still would, so while I wasn't eating meat, it would still be around the house).
To me, it's important in making relationships work. How much you're willing to compromise when your partner is different. Many vegetarian/non-vegetarian couples just wouldn't work because one partner would try to change the other, for instance, or just say it shouldn't affect them what the other does, and leaving when it does.

But communication and strong ties and complicity help a couple overcome their differences, sometimes one partner has to compromise more, sometimes it's more even. When one partner compromises more, it's important that the other recognises it. At the same time, it's important that the first one realises that while the other isn't compromising as much, they still are.

About the idea that one person might be poly on the emotional stage but without sex, I do believe it's possible. Actually, the way I see it, polyamory focuses on love and feelings and relationships, and swinging focuses on sex. While they overlap, sex without feeling would be swinging and not polyamory, and feelings without sex would be polyamory and not swinging.
Sex with a friend could be either/both, I think.

So I think that's the main difference, a difference of focus, and that by definition polyamory focuses more on feelings than on sex. That doesn't mean there can't be both, since there usually IS sex as well, but that does mean, in my opinion, that there can be feelings without want/need sex and that would still qualify as polyamory.
I guess that would mean you are either not a very sexual person, or exclusive for lovemaking but not love, or perhaps in some cases you might think your feelings are wrong and prefer thinking of the other person while having sex with your "real" partner...

Either way, in my opinion that still sounds like polyamory, while cheating or swinging without feelings doesn't "count" as polyamory to me (although that's not monogamy either).
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-12-2010, 04:30 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 capricorny View Post

I wonder if that may be the real difference between "mono" and "poly": "Real" monogamists can't stand sex being linked with love outside the relationship at all.
Actually a "real" monogamous person can stand that. How do I know..because I am one. People who adhere to the ideal of socially defined monogamy couldn't but I am not one of those. I am a monogamous person internally, not one who simply acts monogamous based on exteranl conditionaing and influences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post

BTW, if you had an affair, you aren't completely monogamous either. "Monogamous, but not fanatically" sounds a lot like "virgin, but not fanatically" to me
Having an affair doesn't mean you "love" two people the same way. It implies I had sex with two people. Full stop. One I loved as a lover, the other I no longer did. I loved her as the mother of my child and friend but not as a lover.

"Intimately loving" someone includes having sex for me. Sex is inherently tied to love for me but it took me 37 years to figure that out.
I associate Poly with sexual intent. For me personally, poly includes sexual energy although maybe not actually having sex due to certain reasons. I define poly very specifically for myself. Poly love is the kind of love that creates sexual attraction.

I do not "poly" love Redpepper's son and husband but I do love them.

As far as poly love towards multiple children and parents, I do not associate that type of love with these people. The multiple child love argument is one of the least well recieved by my mono friends and myself....you don't fuck your kids. No one has to agree with that but that is how I define it. For me and many other people the kind of love that includes sex is far different than any other kind of love. I understand that for others it is not.

I am accepting of the many different ways that people define polyamory and monogamy for themselves. I give no credence to anyone who claims to have the definitive answers to the ideas of "love" beyond thier own heart and soul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post

I think someone who is monogamous is wired for one "lover" type of emotional connexion at a time. They can have more than one of the others, but only one at a time of this one. .
Perfectly put in my opinion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
love - check
ability to love multiple - check
trust/honesty - check
communication - check
my poly is not your poly - check
Beautiful
__________________

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

Poly Events All Over

Last edited by NeonKaos; 05-12-2010 at 08:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-12-2010, 07:52 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
To me, accepting your orientation makes your husband appear a lot less monogamous than he had been hadn't he accepted it. And while not questioning the sexual part at all, an approach along the lines of general exploration of the aspects of love might uncover, for example, that he is not that "mono" oriented in general, just emotionally and sexually. We have had this kind of dialogues at home, and they have been quite fruitful.
I don't believe it changes his monogamy to be accepting of poly or open relationships.

Relate this to religion and it kind of becomes absurd, am I less atheist (I am agnostic, just using this for arguments sake) if I can accept others peoples Christianity. To be a "good" atheist...do I need to vehemently deny everyone their choice?

I still think the foundation needs to be left somewhat vague, ideally,

love - check
ability to love multiple - check
trust/honesty - check
communication - check
my poly is not your poly - check

You can't have relationship status in there, you can't have any religious leanings, ritualistic love ins etc. Those are the pure basics. To add any other pieces to the foundation of poly, you begin to eliminate people. My poly is really not your poly...that could be the last foundation I suppose

Most of the other things listed here could be chapters on "how to", or "what to possibly expect" or "methods of dealing with"...but as a pure foundation. No.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-12-2010, 09:47 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
love - check
ability to love multiple - check
trust/honesty - check
communication - check
my poly is not your poly - check
And a sexually and emotionally monogamous person could check all the way here. That was my point. It just depends on which notion of love you apply.

Polyamory is not a belief system, so the eventual (non)significance of attitude can't be inferred by analogy to belief systems.

I would add equality/equivalence/equity/balance/symmetry - whatever we call it - to the list to make it complete.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-12-2010, 09:54 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
I would add equality/equivalence/equity/balance/symmetry - whatever we call it - to the list to make it complete.
Why?...symmetry doesn't apply to everyones poly. There are poly relationships that do work without symmetry...I think its a bit of a utopia to have that, it can happen, but doesn't always.

Quote:
And a sexually and emotionally monogamous person could check all the way here. That was my point. It just depends on which notion of love you apply.
I still don't get what you mean by this. I think you are complicating it to much. You either love someone, or don't. (I may simply be misunderstanding your point)

I can have sex with someone and not love them
I can love someone and not have sex with them
I can have sex with someone and love someone

2 of the 3 are poly. Separating it into its tiny loving parts begins to separate those people that have the happy hippy feeling of poly, in loving everyone, or separates those swingers who have fallen in love with someone they have were just trying to have sex with.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-12-2010, 09:56 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
I am a monogamous person internally, not one who simply acts monogamous based on exteranl conditionaing and influences.
So you are emotionally monogamous. (Maybe sexually too, I didn't quite get that from your descrition of affair.) Does that exclude you from being polyamorous? That's the question here. With a somewhat less specialized notion of love than your "love without sex is friendship", I think you would check all the way on Ariakas' list, wouldn't you?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-12-2010, 10:10 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

ok...I should say...MY poly is romantic. Just like I can't be monogamous with my cousin, I can't relate poly to that either. Some peoples poly can be all encompassing...thats just doesn't feel right to me. I am poly because I was romantically involved and in love and sexual with someone else. I can't relate poly to my non intimate, non sexual, friends who I love.

That where this foundation thing gets "funny"...because even at its root it is different for everyone...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-13-2010, 12:46 AM
idealist's Avatar
idealist idealist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Deep South
Posts: 542
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
ok...I should say...MY poly is romantic. Just like I can't be monogamous with my cousin, I can't relate poly to that either. Some peoples poly can be all encompassing...thats just doesn't feel right to me. I am poly because I was romantically involved and in love and sexual with someone else. I can't relate poly to my non intimate, non sexual, friends who I love.
That where this foundation thing gets "funny"...because even at its root it is different for everyone...
Would you say that you are more "situational poly" rather than "fundementally poly" Because I do see friends as potential future lovers. I see potential future lovers everywhere. But in actuallity, very few of the people I have dated in the last 5 years have become lovers. So- I am not neccesarily situational poly, but poly by nature and just waiting for the right people to show up.
__________________
The key to life is in being fully engaged and peacefully detached simultaneously and authentically in each moment.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-13-2010, 02:30 AM
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 capricorny View Post
So you are emotionally monogamous. (Maybe sexually too, I didn't quite get that from your descrition of affair.) Does that exclude you from being polyamorous? That's the question here. With a somewhat less specialized notion of love than your "love without sex is friendship", I think you would check all the way on Ariakas' list, wouldn't you?
Nope, I couldn't check two of them.

1) I don't have the ability to intimately love multiple partners, because I believe Ariakas is specifically using the the word love as in the type of love that can include sexual expression; the love of your children does not. There are different types of love. When I talk about it on here for the most part it is directly relationships related to adult sexual relationships.

I am sexually mongamous..when I had the affair I was essentially ill and completely without an understanding of the role sex had in my life. I got professional help to figure that out. I also explored non-loving sexual encounters and they were less than stimulating. Yes, my nature, my wiring and possibly my genetics, exclude me from being poly. But they do not exclude me from having a relationship with someone who is.

I could pop viagra and screw lots of women, but I only love one. I'm much better at sex when I am in love

2) instead of saying my poly is not your poly (because I claim no ability in polyamory) I say - my monogamy respects your poly but maintains it's basic principle: I love and give myself to one. How you chose to love me has no affect on how I love you
__________________

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

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-13-2010, 11:02 AM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Nope, I couldn't check two of them.

1) I don't have the ability to intimately love multiple partners, because I believe Ariakas is specifically using the the word love as in the type of love that can include sexual expression; the love of your children does not. There are different types of love. When I talk about it on here for the most part it is directly relationships related to adult sexual relationships.

I am sexually mongamous..when I had the affair I was essentially ill and completely without an understanding of the role sex had in my life. I got professional help to figure that out. I also explored non-loving sexual encounters and they were less than stimulating. Yes, my nature, my wiring and possibly my genetics, exclude me from being poly. But they do not exclude me from having a relationship with someone who is.

I could pop viagra and screw lots of women, but I only love one. I'm much better at sex when I am in love

2) instead of saying my poly is not your poly (because I claim no ability in polyamory) I say - my monogamy respects your poly but maintains it's basic principle: I love and give myself to one. How you chose to love me has no affect on how I love you
You are insisting on the sexual component of love here. Most of us aren't, including Ariakas

Quote:
I can have sex with someone and not love them
I can love someone and not have sex with them
I can have sex with someone and love someone

2 of the 3 are poly. Separating it into its tiny loving parts begins to separate those people that have the happy hippy feeling of poly, in loving everyone, or separates those swingers who have fallen in love with someone they have were just trying to have sex with.
And it is a bit odd if you, identifying as non-poly, should have a defining veto over us poly people in determining what is poly and what isn't, isn't it?

You are emotionally mono. Which is not exclusive of being poly in a more general sense, and from how you describe your own attitude towards loving, I would indeed identify you as poly. Maybe "poly without benefits" like in "friends with benefits"?

The reason why I try to be precise here, even if it produces rather counter-intuitive results, is that when we poly people try to define our foundation, we end up with absolutely nothing that could not be in a general ethical foundation. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that mono is probably the special case, poly isn't.

That emotional monogamy may be in the genes of quite a few people, is to be expected from evolution. Being reliable and able to focus can surely have increased the chances of survival in many cases..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
best practices, boundaries, foundations, guidelines, mono, mono/poly, monogamous, monogamy, principles, rules

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 11:42 PM.